Anti-Infanticide bill defeated!

Ravenclaw

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:03 am

I like trying to understand both sides of a debate...
Thankfully theflipside (courtesy of youngish bear) has an article on this today:
https://www.theflipside.io/latest-issue

Now I get it. My opinion stays the same, I still think this bill should have passed. However at least I understand that Democrats aren’t demonic. Their arguments were being strawmanned.

youngishbear

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:11 am

Ravenclaw wrote:

2cents

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:12 am

simcha2 wrote:

This has been back and forthed ad nauseam. But read the post above with the psak from R Elyashiv. (Also I didn't say a word about the governor)

So you basically failed to address any of my points, insulted me and put a lot of words in my mouth. Talk about knee jerk reaction.

I erased my original post because of this misquote. The psak my family got was nothing like the callous words of the VA governor. Chas vshalom.

The baby was delivered full term, when the mother went into labor, and was taken home after 4 days of neonatal care, and was cared for and loved for the rest of his life. The psak was whether or not to seek to multiple risky and painful surgeries, all around the world literally, when they would still not prolong life for more than possibly a year.

My only point in stating this was

A. that halacha considers every aspect, and that at times, for example, someone is told to never put a patient on a respirator so that the question of when to pull the plug never comes up. Of course the general route is NOT to routinely sign DNRs but this question does come up in end of life care. Rav Moshe writes about it extensively, will all the care and chashivus hachaim one would expect from a gadol. So it is false to say it is anti Torah ti prolong life any way possible.

B. All of that is a far, far, far cry from babies who fought to survive abortion being left to die on the table, a far, far, far cry from mothers and obgyns deciding how to proceed while the baby lies there, and a far, far, far cry from mothers being advised that once the abortion process starts at home they can put the baby is a jar of fluid or flush it if it is twitching (pure evil...someone already linked to the dailywire.com article about this).

For those asking who read the proposed bill, ben shapiro went thru it paragraph by paragraph on yesterday's podcast, trying to find what was objectionable. Theres even a provision in there that the mother can never be prosecuted based on anything that happens, no matter what, and the only criminality it would impose on doctors is if they fail to transfer the baby to a neonatal/maternity unit.

He also mentions, somewhere in the podcast, that statistically more than 80% of third trimester abortions are performed on healthy, viable babies.

Laiya

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:15 am

WhatFor wrote:

The point was the induced delivery of the baby that couldn't survive outside of the womb was called an abortion even though it's exactly as you're describing. The only difference between that and regular delivery was that the mother was choosing to not wait until contractions started naturally.

People are taking issue with cases where the baby (and mom) are healthy.

flowerpower

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:16 am

Ravenclaw wrote:

To those defending it because anyway late term abortions are only allowed to save the mother’s life—
How in the world can killing a baby—as opposed to delivering it (which the mother must go through regardless)—save the mother’s life?
I am baffled that people are defending this. Please explain this to me.

Me too! I have no words. It’s just shocking and scary. 😦

Laiya

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:19 am

simcha2 wrote:

Halacha does consider the mental health of the mother, not only the physical.

But as I stated above, I'm not saying that the law exactly replicates halacha, but rather, if we want to be able to follow halacha we have to allow that the law is broad enough to allow others to follow theirs.

So it sounds like you're saying, better to allow healthy women to abort healthy, 40 week old fetuses, then to have a law that does not allow a sick 26 week old fetus to be aborted?

simcha2

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:28 am

2cents wrote:

I'm sorry you thought I was misquoting you.

My point was that there is nuance and yiddishkeit doesn't automatically assume extreme measures.

Does Ben Shapiro say where he gets that statistic or does he give it unsupported?

simcha2

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:29 am

Laiya wrote:

So it sounds like you're saying, better to allow healthy women to abort healthy, 40 week old fetuses, then to have a law that does not allow a sick 26 week old fetus to be aborted?

No, I'm saying that it is better to have a law that allows halacha to be followed than one that doesn't.

2cents

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:52 am

simcha2 wrote:

I'm a casual listener and didnt note the source (I'm 100% he said it, but cant even be sure it was in yesterday's episode).

A quick Google search found me this

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....tract

This

http://clinicquotes.com/abby-j.....ions/

And this

http://drhern.com/en/abortion-......html

Theres also this article, from a prolife organization, that quotes some of those studies and more

https://www.liveaction.org/new.....ions/

People like to throw all abortion conversations off by saying "what about rape and incest" when in fact those only account for 3% of abortions, and this "it's only because the baby is not viable" seems to be the new pitch.

itsmeima

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 10:23 am

simcha2 wrote:

No, I'm saying that it is better to have a law that allows halacha to be followed than one that doesn't.

Yes!

Please keep in-mind, as Jews we are "pro-life", but we aren't Christians!

(Many Christians would like to ban late-term-abortion to save the mother!)

33055

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 10:25 am

itsmeima wrote:

Yes!

Please keep in-mind, as Jews we are "pro-life", but we aren't Christians!

Those aren't the only 2 choices. It is better to have a law that allows halacha without late turn abortions.

Laiya

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 11:03 am

simcha2 wrote:

No, I'm saying that it is better to have a law that allows halacha to be followed than one that doesn't.

How do you distinguish between supporting halacha and supporting Torah values?

33055

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 12:08 pm

Squishy wrote:

The anti-murdering babies bill was introduced because of the states expanding the definition of abortion. 5 states expanded the definition of allowable abortions. 29 states passed 80 bills expanding abortion, access to birth control, s-xual education. Bills expanding abortion outpaced bills contacting abortion rights. Virginia's proposed bill would allow abortion while the woman was in active labor. Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam, defended a proposed abortion bill by saying he would keep the baby comfortable and then the mother and doctors could decide what to do with the baby.

Democrats who support infanticide are immoral. Largely because of the backlash against Northam (D), the bill was defeated. Meanwhile, New York is one of the states
that expanded the ability to murder in the 3rd trimester.

My close friend is an OB/GYN. She told me that with imaging, Drs are aware of birth defects in time to get abortions much earlier in the pregnancy if the babies are incapable with life.

I gave birth at 30 1/2 weeks. What kind of person could murder these preemies?

Note to liberals: stop denying statements when there are video of them. You lose credibility.

I spoke with my OB/GYN friend. She said you can tell fetal abnormalities as early as 12 weeks and definitely by 18 weeks. There isn't a reason to wait until the third trimester to decide the baby isn't a keeper because of birth defects.

simcha2

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 12:31 pm

Squishy wrote:

As a level2 ultrasound isn't recommended until 20 weeks, I have no idea how she can make such a statement.

33055

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 12:37 pm

simcha2 wrote:

As a level2 ultrasound isn't recommended until 20 weeks, I have no idea how she can make such a statement.

I try to ignore you, so please stop commenting on my posts. I don't want to call you out again.

She can make this statement because she is an OB/GYN with 30 plus years of experience. She is brilliant and scored the highest score in the country on her residency exams. She is an acknowledged expert in her field.

Where are you practicing medicine Dr?

DrMom

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 12:41 pm

simcha2 wrote:

As a level2 ultrasound isn't recommended until 20 weeks, I have no idea how she can make such a statement.

I believe the "skirat mukdemet" offered as standard though most major heath funds in Israel is a level II ultrasound. This takes place in weeks 12-16.

SixOfWands

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 12:50 pm

Squishy wrote:

Well, I certainly hope that you don't rely upon her for medical assitance.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ("ACOG"), confirms that variable-onset and late-onset anomalies are difficult to diagnose before 20 weeks. In 2013, ACOG noted, “by the time a diagnosis is confirmed by a specialist capable of diagnosing these anomalies, the pregnancy has often progressed beyond 20 weeks.” This is usually due to the length of time it takes to schedule additional tests and to receive results.

Examples of of lethal fetal anomalies detected after 20 weeks include, but are not limited to:

[*]anencephaly, which is a lethal fetal anomaly characterized by the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, leading to death before or shortly after birth
renal agenesis, where the kidneys fail to materialize, leading to death before or shortly after birth

[*]limb-body wall complex, where the organs develop outside of the body cavity

[*]neural tube defects such as encephalocele (the protrusion of brain tissue through an opening in the skull), and severe hydrocephaly (severe accumulation of excessive fluid within the brain)

[*]meningomyelocele, which is an opening in the vertebrae through which the meningeal sac may protrude

[*]caudal regression syndrome, a structural defect of the lower spine leading to neurological impairment and incontinence

[*]lethal skeletal dysplasias, where spinal and limb growth are grossly impaired leading to stillbirths, premature birth, and often death shortly after birth, often from respiratory failure

A couple of stories of women who had to face these choices

https://www.washingtonpost.com.....d679a

https://www.self.com/story/23-week-abortion

https://www.womenshealthmag.co.....tion/

Fox

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 1:06 pm

I think the nature of what it means to be "pro-choice" or "pro-life" has changed a great deal in the past decade or so, and a lot of people haven't quite caught up.

Through the 90s, I would have described myself as moderately pro-choice. Like many frum Jewish women, I was concerned about how restrictive abortion laws might impact halachically-mandated abortions. I still thought of Planned Parenthood as the good guys, providing contraception and women's health services to people who might not have access otherwise.

Like a lot of people, I thought of abortion as a zero-sum game: no abortions whatsoever or abortion any time for any reason.

That impression wasn't exactly aided by the pro-life movement in the 90s, which seemed to consist of a lot of wild-eyed Evangelical Christians who explicitly wanted to ban abortion in ways that would create halachic problems for Jewish women.

But a lot has changed since then.

Medical technology has given us a lot more insight into prenatal development as well as the ability to save younger and younger preemies. By comparison, my ultrasounds from the early- to mid-90s look like it's going to be cold on Tuesday.

The pro-choice movement has changed, too. Instead of "safe, legal, and rare," PP has deliberately become an activist organization attempting to promote abortion as "health care," as if it were an annual pap smear or mammogram.

The pro-life movement has become more inclusive, too, no longer insisting that people adopt an all-or-nothing mindset.

So I've had to re-evaluate my own stand, and apparently I'm not alone. The Federalist article I posted upthread details the fact that 77 percent of people who consider themselves pro-choice are opposed to third-trimester abortions.

In other words, more and more people are realizing that abortion is not a zero-sum game.
____________________________

But why should we care? Why not support the most permissive abortion laws possible in order to ensure that a halachically-mandated abortion will be possible?

Because there are societal consequences that have other, just-as-compelling halachic implications for real people.

Life Is Life
No-restriction abortion sends a cultural message: life is disposable when it doesn't meet our expectations. That manifests itself in a variety of ways, none of them favorable. Where will we draw the line? A child with a predicted short lifespan? A child who has some kind of lifelong disability? A child who likely will have ADHD? A child who likely will be gay? A child who will have learning disabilities?

When imperfect life is devalued, it not only moves the needle in terms of what "viability" means in practical terms, it also sends a message to the living: if your life doesn't meet expectations, you're a waste of space.

Cui Bono
Who benefits from all of this? Most importantly, insurance companies. And single-payer health insurance makes the problem worse, not better.

As it is, many couples experience significant pressure to terminate a pregnancy at the slightest anomaly. I discovered this back in 1990 when doctors first detected my DD's cranio-facial anomalies through ultrasounds. Fortunately, I had physicians who backed up our decision, but the only thing to stop insurance companies from threatening parents is fear of public embarrassment. To the degree that we lessen that embarrassment, parents are unprotected.

The Slippery Slope
Like a lot of people, I thought the worst-case scenarios were ridiculous. Obviously, no one was going to be turning off respirators or denying medical care to anyone.

Unfortunately, I was stupid.

A poster upthread mentioned the Charlie Gard case in England, where the country's NHS ruled that the parents could not take the child to Italy for experimental treatment, even though there was no cost to the NHS.

Or Iceland, which bragged that they had "eliminated" Down Syndrome by terminating virtually all pregnancies where Down Syndrome was diagnosed.

Are there circumstances where halacha requires that no additional treatment be given? Yes, but anyone who has been in that circumstance knows that each case is unique, and a posek will often review every single medication and treatment, making individual decisions about each one.
____________________________

There is no excuse for not passing this bill.

The argument that it was redundant is ridiculous. There are plenty of laws passed every year that are redundant.

It was a stunt to "rile up" a political base? What "base" would that be? People who are uncomfortable with discarding a baby that, under other circumstances, would be treated?

It would discourage doctors from performing late-term abortions? Good. There is a difference between "illegal" and "undesirable." Late term abortions and premature induced deliveries should be a serious matter.

There is simply no excuse.

33055

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 1:06 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Perhaps things have changed in the last 6 years.
Medicine is changing rapidly. I don't know where you are practicing medicine either.

It's really ridiculous for you and I too be discussing this. We aren't experts. My friend is on staff of a medical school and she consults with one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country. I could tell you another very impressive thing on her resume, but that would give away her identity.

You're a good researcher who always finds obscure examples. But maybe they aren't relevant to the large majority of late term abortions. I still go with the OB/GYN's opinion.

A few ago we were having a discussion about someone we know who had gave birth to a baby with severe birth defects. These birth defects are virtually unheard of in the US because of ultra sound. I realized she is correct. Most babies with this condition are foreign.

Fox

Wed, Feb 27 2019, 1:20 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-I-had-an-abortion-after-20-weeks/2015/09/20/174495cc-5e2f-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html?utm_term=.e69f0c5d679a

https://www.self.com/story/23-week-abortion

https://www.womenshealthmag.co.....tion/

It's hard to know where to start.

First of all, I don't think anyone here is advocating for a complete, total ban on abortion -- even into the second trimester. One of these women indicates that the deterioration of the fetus would have put her health at risk. That's not the situation being discussed in this thread or in any legislation.

Second, the two stories I was able to read left me completely cold. Like a lot of women, they just took for granted that they would have healthy babies. They treated their ultrasound appointments like parties. No, sweetheart. It's a serious time. It's not some cutesie thing so you can see prenatal pix. That attitude is a level of entitlement that makes me ill.

BTDT -- twice! Nobody is guaranteed a healthy baby. This is not Amazon, where you box it up and return it if it doesn't meet your expectations and desires.