Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

moriah

(8,312 posts)
2. What happened to them might not have been called an abortion even under his dreamland laws...
Sat Jan 7, 2012, 08:09 AM
Jan 2012

"'She was in spontaneous labor because of the severe infection. The use of antibiotics in no way augments labor nor does it initiate contractions in any way, shape or form.' In fact, sometimes the opposite is true, and antibiotics can help forestall labor."

... in his dreamland laws, though, especially the ones like the "Protect Life Act" that I'm sure he would have supported had he been in congress, if they had gone to a Catholic hospital like their faith might have directed them to do, Karen would never have been given the option to induce labor, told her chances with both watchfully waiting and immediate labor induction, instead likely being put on a floor and given as much antibiotics and blood transfusions as were necessary until the baby died or labor proceeded. If labor hadn't proceeded, in such a hospital, the fact Karen and Rick would have been willing to accept labor induction at the last possible moment would have not mattered -- they wouldn't know about the option. Or just turned her away.

I really want to see his response to the Catholic Bishops on the "Protect Life Act"

http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/fact-sheet-emergency-services-protect-life-act.cfm

"Is EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) currently a problem?

No. It clearly states that health care personnel must respond to an emergency in which a pregnant woman or "her unborn child" is in distress, and should stabilize the condition of both. It is absurd to interpret the deliberate killing of the unborn child as "stabilizing" her condition, though abortion advocates have tried to do so."

If "deliberate killing" is speeding labor during a septic miscarriage in a woman running a 105 degree fever, already at the verge of sepsis itself, and letting the child be born alive tho too premature to survive... actually, it's stabilizing the condition of both. The child is no longer in a septic environment that is guaranteed to kill it -- instead, it gets to die a natural death outside of it's mothers womb. Stabilizing the mother occurred when the baby was delivered.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Salon.com: Karen Santoru...»Reply #2