facist law forces mom to give birth just to watch the child die 15 minutes later

[Cecilie1200]

And my guess is the reason they didn't kill the baby and conduct an abortion is because they knew miscarriage was imminent and supposed it would be better for the mother to miscarry naturally, rather than having the still living baby ripped from her and killed.

And that's exactly what happened. They had 8 days to prepare, and the baby died a natural and fairly non-traumatic death, it sounds like.

Apparently, they were just going to induce labor, let her give birth, and then let her hold the baby until she died. But because the pregnancy was more than 20 weeks along, and because they didn't intend to try to save or prolong the baby's life (since it couldn't be done), that made it illegal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Could have become a "Miracle" and a big time money maker for the doctors for the long-term care for the baby, who if survived, would very likely need very expensive life-supporting care.

What the hell are you babbling about?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the baby was compromised because of the reduction of amniotic fluid, which brought about severe complications for the baby making it likely it would die upon birth.

But in cases like this, it is better for the mother to go ahead and deliver the baby. Abortion is risky, and the baby was likely going to die anyway. That does NOT mean it would be the right thing to hurry up and kill it, to get it over. Some things have to run their course. Child birth is one of those things, whether or not the baby is perfect.

Oligohydramnios. My guess would be that the baby had renal agenesis, which means it's kidneys and GU system never developed, which means the baby wasn't going to make it.

I don't know if they induced her or if she went into spontaneous labor. Either way, it's sad.

They couldn't induce. That's the part that would have been illegal. They had to let the miscarriage resume and take its natural course.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since it matters to you - there is no indication the child suffered in the womb at all.

Right. The child being the secondary patient to a healthy mother whose physical health was not threated by her in any way was not killed to ease the possible future emotional distress of her mother.

I can't imagine that it would have helped the mother's emotional distress in the slightest, other than NOW she's got herself all worked up about how she was "forced" into something.

My mother lost my oldest brother to a miscarriage back when they didn't have the ability to stop it with medication. That was 45 years ago, and given that she still remembers his birthday and talks about him, I'd venture a guess that she would TREASURE having a few extra days with him before he died.

Your mother's perspective is not universal to all women.

No, there are mothers who don't love and treasure their children, but I can't say I'm deeply concerned about those women.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, the baby was compromised because of the reduction of amniotic fluid, which brought about severe complications for the baby making it likely it would die upon birth.

But in cases like this, it is better for the mother to go ahead and deliver the baby. Abortion is risky, and the baby was likely going to die anyway. That does NOT mean it would be the right thing to hurry up and kill it, to get it over. Some things have to run their course. Child birth is one of those things, whether or not the baby is perfect.

Oligohydramnios. My guess would be that the baby had renal agenesis, which means it's kidneys and GU system never developed, which means the baby wasn't going to make it.

I don't know if they induced her or if she went into spontaneous labor. Either way, it's sad.

They couldn't induce. That's the part that would have been illegal. They had to let the miscarriage resume and take its natural course.

I think that's silly. Induction is not abortion.

Technically speaking, miscarriages are prior to 20 weeks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oligohydramnios. My guess would be that the baby had renal agenesis, which means it's kidneys and GU system never developed, which means the baby wasn't going to make it.

I don't know if they induced her or if she went into spontaneous labor. Either way, it's sad.

They couldn't induce. That's the part that would have been illegal. They had to let the miscarriage resume and take its natural course.

I think that's silly. Induction is not abortion.

Technically speaking, miscarriages are prior to 20 weeks.

Incorrect on both counts. An abortion is " the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus".

I had an induced labor with both of my last two children. It wasn't considered an abortion, though, because the doctor had every intention of the babies living afterward. That was the difference in this case.

On the second point, a miscarriage is not defined by when it takes place. Most miscarriages DO take place earlier in the pregnancy, but a miscarriage is any spontaneous expulsion of a fetus before viability. My older brother, mentioned earlier, was farther along than 20 weeks when my mother miscarried. I don't know how many weeks. Mom slipped on some ice and fell down a flight of stairs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The story gives no indication of a scientific diagnosis that could identify a medical problem that would cause a baby to die within 15 minutes of birth. They operate on babies in the womb these days. They could perform a Cesarian at 22 weeks. I smell a big fat liberal rat in this story.

More than one. They seem to be ignoring the fact that this baby must have been near term before the doctors managed to diagnose the problem. Even the Supreme Court cut off abortions after 6 months.

No, she was at 22 weeks when the problem was diagnosed. But what they don't tell you is that the problem they diagnosed - the one unhelpfully described in the story as "non-viable pregnancy" - was that she was in the middle of a miscarriage.

My experience with the Examiner is that they often gloss over facts in favor of their POV. When I made that comment all i had was a deep suspicion of the facts I had, and I wanted more. I made some wrong guesses, but I was closed to the truth than the people who said this was fascist and that the state was taking away her rights.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

More than one. They seem to be ignoring the fact that this baby must have been near term before the doctors managed to diagnose the problem. Even the Supreme Court cut off abortions after 6 months.

No, she was at 22 weeks when the problem was diagnosed. But what they don't tell you is that the problem they diagnosed - the one unhelpfully described in the story as "non-viable pregnancy" - was that she was in the middle of a miscarriage.

My experience with the Examiner is that they often gloss over facts in favor of their POV. When I made that comment all i had was a deep suspicion of the facts I had, and I wanted more. I made some wrong guesses, but I was closed to the truth than the people who said this was fascist and that the state was taking away her rights.

I was thinking the same thing. I googled the woman up and read her story. Unlike the SF examiner it was not political. It was heart breaking. I feel for the woman and her Husband who in the end took turns holding there little girl until she died. I find it disgusting that the examiner and the original poster would be so quick to hump this woman tragedy for a political feel good moment or an opportunity to say "i told you so", or in the thread starter's case "rep points" They are truly inhuman scum of the lowest order.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

The article.- Heartache shared to help others - Omaha.com

Published Monday March 7, 2011
Heartache shared to help others

By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD bureau
« Metro/Region
Share

LINCOLN — Danielle Deaver would have stood on her head in a freezer if it could have saved her baby’s life.

Parents do that kind of thing.

But extreme measures wouldn’t have mattered for the Grand Island, Neb., woman and the child she carried last year.

That baby was doomed when Deaver’s water broke the day after Thanksgiving.

It was a new Nebraska abortion law, though, that turned an unbearable situation into one that Deaver, 34, and her husband, Robb, 40, called torturous.

The Deavers are going public with their story in hopes of helping other families, including those in Iowa and other states where lawmakers are considering following Nebraska’s lead.

Deaver had four months to go in her pregnancy when she lost most of the amniotic fluid that cushions the fetus and helps its development, she said in an interview Sunday.

Doctors told the Deavers the loss of fluid stopped the baby’s lung development and would lead to deformities of the head and limbs. Their baby was given less than a 10 percent chance of surviving delivery; less than a 2 percent chance of ever managing basic functions, like eating.

“The odds were awful,” Danielle Deaver said. “It just wasn’t there.”

But devastating as that blow had been, what followed turned out to be at least as excruciating.

The Deavers thought over the possibilities and made a decision. They didn’t want to continue putting their unborn baby through what they feared was agony, so they asked the doctors to induce labor early.

“We were seeking to have the inevitable happen,” Danielle Deaver said. “We in no way, shape or fashion were seeking an abortion.”

But they were soon told the Nebraska abortion law stood in their way.

The law, which took effect in October, bans abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization, a point chosen because some experts say it is when a fetus can feel pain.

Previous state law followed the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court. It banned abortions after a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically about 22 weeks after fertilization.

The new law permits abortions in the later months of pregnancy only to protect a woman’s life or prevent major physical problems. In the eyes of the law, giving medication to induce labor at that stage of pregnancy would be an abortion.

Since Deaver was healthy and the baby still had a heartbeat, they didn’t fit the exceptions in the law.

Specialists at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and the couple’s primary care doctor in Hastings, Neb., agreed that they could risk their medical licenses and prison time if they did the procedure, so the Deavers were sent home to wait.

Danielle Deaver was told to watch for signs of infection, a potential complication of losing amniotic fluid. And she agonized every time she felt the baby move, knowing that the child no longer had any protection from the uterine muscles.

“I told Robb I don’t know what to pray for,” she recalled. “Do I pray for a miracle or do I pray that I get sick enough that we can end this?”

Deaver finally went into labor on her own on Dec. 7. The baby, named Elizabeth, was born the next day at 3 p.m., weighing 1 pound, 10 ounces.

The Deavers took turns holding her while she gasped for air. But her undeveloped lungs could not inflate and no ventilator could have made a difference.

Elizabeth was pronounced dead at 3:15 p.m. The Deavers cremated her and had a family service.

Recently they decided to speak out about their experience in the hope of making a difference for other families in similar situations. They have not decided whether to mount a legal challenge to the Nebraska law.

“We should have been able to make this decision,” Danielle Deaver said. “This was not about abortion or politics or anything. This was about two parents being able to make an excruciating decision.”

Robb Deaver said he doesn’t believe Nebraska lawmakers considered all the possibilities when they passed last year’s law.

And the couple are urging lawmakers in other states to slow down before following in Nebraska’s footsteps.

Bills mirroring the first-of-its-kind Nebraska law have been introduced in the Iowa Legislature, where they have been referred to committees.

Similar measures are pending in Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia and other states.

Speaker of the Legislature Mike Flood of Norfolk, who introduced the Nebraska bill, said the Deavers’ story is similar to other difficult situations that lawmakers were told about when considering the legislation.

His support for the law has not wavered.

“Even in these situations where a baby has a terminal condition, there is still a life,” Flood said. “That life is worth protecting.”

Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, also continues to support the law.

“Isn’t it more humane for the baby to die in a loving manner with comfort, care and in the arms of her parents than by the intentional painful death through abortion?” she asked.

But Jill June, president and CEO of the Des Moines-based Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said the law damaged both Danielle Deaver and her baby.

She said Deaver was forced to risk her own health and endure mental anguish, while the fetus also had to suffer.

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who runs the Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Bellevue, said he had predicted there would be cases such as the Deavers’ under the new law. He said he has had to refer other women out of state for later-term abortions.

Danielle Deaver said the law is too unyielding.

“The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God,” she said. “How to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should have been mine, and it wasn’t because of a law.”

Contact the writer:

402-473-9583, [email protected]

 

[Immanuel]

She was TOLD that the baby would be dead, would NOT survive.

Being FORCED to carry this baby for a few more weeks or even months in other cases due to this law, does not allow the parents to END their trauma, their sorrow and their grief, and forces the woman DAILY to rehash what is going on inside her....

IT'S WRONG, wrong wrong....

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

We DO know, actually. The pregnancy couldn't have gone to term, because the "non-viability" the OP's article unhelpfully talk about was due to the mother starting to miscarry. THAT is what the doctors told her: that the circumstances of the miscarriage meant the baby would never have the anatomy to breathe on her own. They didn't induce any labor, because they had no intention of doing anything to prolong the baby's life, since there wasn't anything they could have done. That fact would have made it an abortion, and not legal. So instead, they let the miscarriage proceed on its own.

And when I read the additional link you supplied earlier today, I decided to shut down my part of the discussion. I was sort of harsh on the mom and the doctor. Ok, sort of is copping out, I was brutal.

Suffice it to say, I really don't want to continue the line of thought that I had at first.

Immie

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The story gives no indication of a scientific diagnosis that could identify a medical problem that would cause a baby to die within 15 minutes of birth. They operate on babies in the womb these days. They could perform a Cesarian at 22 weeks. I smell a big fat liberal rat in this story.

Yes. The media, along with the mother stating in the video, are all lying.

if they are breathing, then they are BORN, and no way do I support infanticide....

I think you're missing the fact that the baby's condition IS NOT VIABLE WITH LIFE. If it's brain or lungs or heart did not work whatsoever, and it still moved for a moment after the birthing process, why bother splitting hairs of whether it was born and alive or not? It's condition is not viable with life.

The idea that ending suffering is justification for murder seems absurd to me. it misses the entire point of life. It robs people of experience.

And what experience did this baby have? A few minutes of pure agony? What experience would you possibly have wanted this baby to have experienced?

The baby died with dignity. What kind of selfish mother would want less than that?

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?! What dignity did the baby have? Or were you being sarcastic?

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Her story makes me glad I am a man. I dont know if I could handle it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Becaue what you propose is euthanasia. It's murdering people before their time on the ass backwards assumption you're doing THEM a favor.

BTW, I'm 100 percent certain that you are going to die.

May I off you now? Save you the grief I know is coming to you?

You seem to have this thing about euthanasia. It's clear that you use it as a buzz word instead of analyzing the actual ethics of the matter.

You then go on to make the ridiculous claim that Dr.Grump is suggesting that doctors should be able to kill off anyone who will eventually die. I guess I can't expect much more from your ridiculous interpretations than that, so l will clarify. His point was in relation to situations where a person will inevitably die in the short term and have no quality of life in the interim. Quality of life is the topic that all ethicists need to address in medical issues, and the thing that extremist zealots such as yourself don't understand.

This baby had a condition which was not compatible with life. This is probably another term you neither understand nor wish to explore. This was not a case of someone eventually dying. This was a case where life was not possible, and horrible agony was the only thing to bridge the time between birth and full organ shut down.

The baby wasn't dead. She was told it wouldn't survive after birth. Imminent death and DEAD are two different things. You really don't understand that?

You think it's a horror to carry a baby that's less than perfect?

That if a baby is sick then we should just kill it before it has a chance to take a breath of air, to be hugged by its mother, to see her face?

That's a funny kind of compassion. Pretty much not compassion at all.

Once again, the baby could not live. For someone who only sees things in black and white possibilities, you still don't understand this. Compassion is stopping an unnecessary and inevitable suffering. Again, you are clueless about the topic of quality of life, so I don't expect you to understand complex ethical topics.

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

The baby was not dead and rotting in the mother. It was alive with a bad prognosis. The prognosis was that it would die after birth. That would make me want to keep that baby alive in me as long as possible. Not seek and destroy.

But aside from that, you don't get to kill babies based upon your own inconvenience and suffering. That's wrong, just as it's wrong to kill any child because he's disabled, or irritating, or a financial drain.

Except this wasn't a probability of suffering or death, it was a certainty of both. The prognosis was that it couldn't live. At all.

So who benefited from having the baby suffer? What was the good that came out of it? Something good for the baby? Something good for the mom? Tell me who wins.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

We DO know, actually. The pregnancy couldn't have gone to term, because the "non-viability" the OP's article unhelpfully talk about was due to the mother starting to miscarry. THAT is what the doctors told her: that the circumstances of the miscarriage meant the baby would never have the anatomy to breathe on her own. They didn't induce any labor, because they had no intention of doing anything to prolong the baby's life, since there wasn't anything they could have done. That fact would have made it an abortion, and not legal. So instead, they let the miscarriage proceed on its own.

And when I read the additional link you supplied earlier today, I decided to shut down my part of the discussion. I was sort of harsh on the mom and the doctor. Ok, sort of is copping out, I was brutal.

Suffice it to say, I really don't want to continue the line of thought that I had at first.

Immie

S'okay. Not hard to understand, given the vague, misleading article cited by the OP.

I feel for the parents, I really do, because miscarriages are always heartbreaking, and the circumstances in this one are just horrible.

Nevertheless, I get the impression they're lashing out at this law because they need to someone or something to dump on in their grief, and they're being callously used by pro-abortionists.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Her story makes me glad I am a man. I dont know if I could handle it.

I can't imagine it was any better for the father.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

Right. So if the doctors lied to the patient, AND the baby didn't REALLY have a disease that was incompatible with life, AND the mother also went alone with it to make those videos, AND if the newspaper willingly propagated the lie for political gain, THEN you may be right. Unfortunately for your little theory, every part of that is wrong.

Back in the 60s, our electronic devices were as sophisticated as the 8 track. Don't compare your grandmother's condition half a century ago in any way affects a modern diagnosis of MISSING VITAL ORGANS.

You accept the story as given by leftist news agencies without question.

The claim was that she did not have the labor induced. I simply said, that they might have done so regardless of what NB law states. It would not be the first time that someone has taken the law into their own hands and it surely won't be the last.

Also, the question is DID they even TRY to save the life of Elizabeth? Evidently they didn't lift a finger to save her. I question why not? Elizabeth lived for 15 minutes. Maybe she could have lived 50 years or more, if they had attempted to save her life. Maybe not, the article doesn't say why she was not expected to live. Why doesn't the article say why Elizabeth was expected to die? Surely, the doctors have a reason for believing Elizabeth would not live more than a few minutes.

There are a lot of questions the article doesn't answer.

Why should I stay out of it? You aren't! Who was the patient? From the moment she was born, Elizabeth was a patient.

Immie

From the moment she was born, she could not live. Instead of accusing mass conspiracy of the parents AND doctors using the best of their modern medical abilities, AND the media politicizing the event, perhaps you too should ask yourself who benefits from this baby suffering horribly while the rest of its body shuts down because it lacks vital organs? Who benefits?

 

[Immanuel]

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

Right. So if the doctors lied to the patient, AND the baby didn't REALLY have a disease that was incompatible with life, AND the mother also went alone with it to make those videos, AND if the newspaper willingly propagated the lie for political gain, THEN you may be right. Unfortunately for your little theory, every part of that is wrong.

Back in the 60s, our electronic devices were as sophisticated as the 8 track. Don't compare your grandmother's condition half a century ago in any way affects a modern diagnosis of MISSING VITAL ORGANS.

You accept the story as given by leftist news agencies without question.

The claim was that she did not have the labor induced. I simply said, that they might have done so regardless of what NB law states. It would not be the first time that someone has taken the law into their own hands and it surely won't be the last.

Also, the question is DID they even TRY to save the life of Elizabeth? Evidently they didn't lift a finger to save her. I question why not? Elizabeth lived for 15 minutes. Maybe she could have lived 50 years or more, if they had attempted to save her life. Maybe not, the article doesn't say why she was not expected to live. Why doesn't the article say why Elizabeth was expected to die? Surely, the doctors have a reason for believing Elizabeth would not live more than a few minutes.

There are a lot of questions the article doesn't answer.

Why should I stay out of it? You aren't! Who was the patient? From the moment she was born, Elizabeth was a patient.

Immie

From the moment she was born, she could not live. Instead of accusing mass conspiracy of the parents AND doctors using the best of their modern medical abilities, AND the media politicizing the event, perhaps you too should ask yourself who benefits from this baby suffering horribly while the rest of its body shuts down because it lacks vital organs? Who benefits?

Your criticism is duly noted.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

Right. So if the doctors lied to the patient, AND the baby didn't REALLY have a disease that was incompatible with life, AND the mother also went alone with it to make those videos, AND if the newspaper willingly propagated the lie for political gain, THEN you may be right. Unfortunately for your little theory, every part of that is wrong.

Back in the 60s, our electronic devices were as sophisticated as the 8 track. Don't compare your grandmother's condition half a century ago in any way affects a modern diagnosis of MISSING VITAL ORGANS.

You accept the story as given by leftist news agencies without question.

The claim was that she did not have the labor induced. I simply said, that they might have done so regardless of what NB law states. It would not be the first time that someone has taken the law into their own hands and it surely won't be the last.

Also, the question is DID they even TRY to save the life of Elizabeth? Evidently they didn't lift a finger to save her. I question why not? Elizabeth lived for 15 minutes. Maybe she could have lived 50 years or more, if they had attempted to save her life. Maybe not, the article doesn't say why she was not expected to live. Why doesn't the article say why Elizabeth was expected to die? Surely, the doctors have a reason for believing Elizabeth would not live more than a few minutes.

There are a lot of questions the article doesn't answer.

Why should I stay out of it? You aren't! Who was the patient? From the moment she was born, Elizabeth was a patient.

Immie

From the moment she was born, she could not live. Instead of accusing mass conspiracy of the parents AND doctors using the best of their modern medical abilities, AND the media politicizing the event, perhaps you too should ask yourself who benefits from this baby suffering horribly while the rest of its body shuts down because it lacks vital organs? Who benefits?

Your criticism is duly noted.

Immie

Methinks Hick's panties are a wee bit tight today.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

methinks you can't actually come up with anything intelligent to say about the topic. typical.

 

[Charles_Main]

funny how people ignored this...

It's not the Story were ignoring Blu.