Woman says both twins would have died under Stupak amendment. Instead one was saved. [View All]

[madfloridian]

It's a real life example of how religious fervor in lawmaking can have drastic impact.

From RH Reality Check:

My Baby Would Have Died Under the Stupak Amendment

In 2006 I became pregnant and was thrilled. After landing in the hospital with a severe kidney infection at 19-weeks gestation, I received my first ultrasound, leaving us shocked and thrilled to see we were expecting identical twin boys.

The joy didn’t last when our babies were diagnosed with Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome. Webmd.com describes Twin-Twin transfusion syndrome as “the most serious complication of identical twins. It starts in the womb when one twin gets too much blood and the other not enough. The outcome for both twins is grim.”

Severe TTTS has a 60-100 percent likelihood of fetal or neonatal mortality rate. We were sent to one of the premier fetal care centers in the country and told our only hope for saving this pregnancy was to have a selective termination on the one of the babies, and hope the other twin would survive.

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.

When she discussed the total bill, and what their portion would be...it shows what women without resources would be up against with such an amendment. Huge numbers.

The total bill from the fetal care center was just over $220,000. Add the care for the entire pregnancy and the cost was well over $500,000. We were fortunate that our insurance covered 80% of the costs. Had they not, I’m not sure what we would have done. Why should I have to choose between having a life-saving procedure that will most likely put us into bankruptcy while at the same time forcing me to choose between the best interests of our much wanted unborn child versus the best interests of our other two children? After three years we have finally paid off our share of bills from that pregnancy.

Their 20% was very large...indeed. Just think if there had been no coverage.

The Stupak amendment would carry over to private insurance, and it would only permit abortion late term if the LIFE of the mother were at stake.

Her health is not a consideration. The fact she would have lost both twins is not a consideration under Stupak. There is more at the link.

It's a serious situation. I don't see any Democratic leaders speaking out on this issue of women's choice. Gays and women's rights are expendable now even though we have a majority.

We can express outrage over Uganda, but we not paying attention to the slippery slopes here in our own country.

Today we learn that Ben Nelson is going to introduce his own little Stupak amendment. I would not be surprised if it passes.

James Wagoner of Advocates for Youth has much to say about whether the amendment passed because of a "power outage" of the pro-choice movement.

Stupak: Aberration or Power Outage in the Pro-Choice Movement?

The Stupak amendment, which robs women of insurance coverage for abortion, has caused all of us to mobilize to redress the damage done by this historic assault on a woman’s right to choose. While this campaign should be our immediate focus for the coming weeks, it should not prevent us from analyzing the factors that brought us to this debacle in the first place.

A few provocative questions come immediately to mind. For starters, how does a pro-choice President and pro-choice House leadership end up moving a bill that seriously undermines a woman’s legal right to abortion? Has the political arm of the pro-choice movement been so co-opted by the Democratic Party that the pro-choice constituency is not just being taken for granted, but being taken to the cleaners on key legislative issues?

Good question, indeed.

Has the decision of pro-choice leaders to acquiesce, implicitly or explicitly, with the decision of Democrats after the 2004 elections to vigorously recruit anti-choice candidates to build the Catholic “brand” within the party, set us on the inevitable path towards marginalization?

While there may be some argument on the “yeas and nays” of these questions, the disastrous 240-194 vote on Stupak signaled profound dysfunction in pro-choice vision, leadership, strategies and tactics. Folks, this wasn’t just a wake-up call, it was a defining moment.

The pro-choice leadership seems to believe that it has an identity of interests with the Democratic Party. This is a mistake. While interests intersect, when it is politically expedient Democrats will throw the abortion issue under the bus. The events of the past few weeks constitute a case study.

Wagoner ends by saying "Stupak looks less and less like an aberration and more like an inevitable consequence of a power outage in the pro-choice movement."