Understanding the NY Abortion Ruling?

[BobJonesBabe]

Although I’ve moved out of both the fundy sphere, and the conservative sphere, it seems like the only people making noise about NY’s abortion ruling are those who see it as “worse than Hitler,” and “killing 5-9 pound babies.” 

I briefly read a link someone uber-conservative shared; and it subtly acknowledged that this meant women whose lives were threatened or whose baby’s life was unviable now had the right to terminate. But beyond that, I just don’t know what it’s about?

 Who can explain? And also, id love links on it from non-right-to-life sites? 

[VelociRapture]

7 minutes ago, BobJonesBabe said:

Although I’ve moved out of both the fundy sphere, and the conservative sphere, it seems like the only people making noise about NY’s abortion ruling are those who see it as “worse than Hitler,” and “killing 5-9 pound babies.” 

I briefly read a link someone uber-conservative shared; and it subtly acknowledged that this meant women whose lives were threatened or whose baby’s life was unviable now had the right to terminate. But beyond that, I just don’t know what it’s about?

 Who can explain? And also, id love links on it from non-right-to-life sites? 

Here you go:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/426533-new-york-passes-bill-expanding-abortion-access%3famp

Basically, women can now get an abortion after 24 weeks if:

- the life of the mother is in danger 

- the health of the mother is at risk or

- if it’s found that the fetus is not viable 

The new law also:

- regulates abortion under public health law, rather than criminal law

- and allows licensed Nurse Practicioners, Nurse Midwives, and Physicians Assistants To conduct abortions

[BobJonesBabe]

So, in other words, it’s decriminalizing necessary procedures? 

 

I seriously feel like so many of my ultra-conservative acquaintances are sensationalizing this (or, unintentionally passing on and repeating sensationalizion? But I really feel confused and conflicted. 

[VelociRapture]

19 minutes ago, BobJonesBabe said:

So, in other words, it’s decriminalizing necessary procedures? 

 

I seriously feel like so many of my ultra-conservative acquaintances are sensationalizing this (or, unintentionally passing on and repeating sensationalizion? But I really feel confused and conflicted. 

Yes, I believe so. It’s making it so that women are able to access the care they need when they need it and it’s making it easier for the medical community to provide the needed care.

If you don’t mind my asking, what specifically are you feeling confused and conflicted by? Maybe someone here can help you work through your thoughts.

[candygirl200413]

I keep telling people who choose not to understand the necessities for having a late-term abortion that if it's a full term birth they're doing a c-section. There are people that believe it's just another way to have an abortion very late in the game for whatever reason when that's not the case at all.

[BobJonesBabe]

I guess I do have concern if people are truly terminating pregnancies later in pregnancy out of convenience? Which in the narrative I heard for most of my life...100% of abortions were for convenience. Even if 25% were, though? 

And to play Devil’s advocate... I see posts like this and get hung up. (Though I realize there are some fact distortions.) 

and the cartoon....the only thing that gets me there is the number? 

 

10 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

I keep telling people who choose not to understand the necessities for having a late-term abortion that if it's a full term birth they're doing a c-section. There are people that believe it's just another way to have an abortion very late in the game for whatever reason when that's not the case at all.

I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying? 

I think maybe it’s along the lines of...we have late-term abortions for the same types of emergency reasons a woman might have a c-section? Both can be caused by emergencies? 

[The limit does not exist]

I had a work friend post about this and how it was just so awful. She had a miscarriage at 36 weeks and she clearly wanted the baby she lost so it was a tragedy. Her situation and the situation of a woman that would get a late term abortion are very different.

My mother was pregnant and the fetus had anencephaly back in the 90s. My parents decided not to have the baby as they were told the survival chance was zero (this is no longer the case but very few live longer than 5 days) so she had an abortion. This can be diagnosed in the first trimester but also in the second trimester. It is my understanding that if this wasn't caught until 24 weeks, she would have been SOL in NY prior to now.

I see nothing wrong with this and all I see from the "Christian-right" is intolerance and a holier-than-thou attitude. In fact, the Christian "news" outlets reporting on this story aren't mentioning the stipulations for an abortion after 24 weeks at all.

[BobJonesBabe]

Totally agree, and this is what I feel like right-wingers and Evangelicals will not acknowledge. I’m sorry for your parents loss, too. 

Also, just because we can sustain life indefinitely, but also in misery, both for babies, elderly; and those in between...doesn’t mean we should. It’s not murder to not do so. ?

i guess I just have more friends in those circles than I realize. And those who have been staunchly on the left side of this for a while haven’t said  much. 

Im still trying to play devils advocate in my own brain for now.... ? so I’m looking for a lot of facts and data.

 

4 minutes ago, The limit does not exist said:

I had a work friend post about this and how it was just so awful. She had a miscarriage at 36 weeks and she clearly wanted the baby she lost so it was a tragedy. Her situation and the situation of a woman that would get a late term abortion are very different.

My mother was pregnant and the fetus had anencephaly back in the 90s. My parents decided not to have the baby as they were told the survival chance was zero (this is no longer the case but very few live longer than 5 days) so she had an abortion. This can be diagnosed in the first trimester but also in the second trimester. It is my understanding that if this wasn't caught until 24 weeks, she would have been SOL in NY prior to now.

I see nothing wrong with this and all I see from the "Christian-right" is intolerance and a holier-than-thou attitude. In fact, the Christian "news" outlets reporting on this story aren't mentioning the stipulations for an abortion after 24 weeks at all.

 

[Bethella]

@BobJonesBabe The 2015 statistics from the CDC (the most recent ones available) show that 1.3% of all abortions in the US occur at 21 weeks or later. I've seen other statistics (that I can't locate right now) that say that most of those abortions occur before 24 weeks and something like 80% are due to fetal abnormalities (which are commonly diagnosed during the 20 week ultrasound). More than 91% of all abortions were performed at or before 13 weeks. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm

Here are a couple of mainstream, factual articles about the new law in NY.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/health/new-york-abortion-measures-trnd/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-passes-abortion-bill-late-term-if-mothers-health-is-at-risk-today-2019-01-23/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-plans-vote-on-abortion-bill-on-roe-v-wade-anniversary-11548162001

[VelociRapture]

6 hours ago, BobJonesBabe said:

Totally agree, and this is what I feel like right-wingers and Evangelicals will not acknowledge. I’m sorry for your parents loss, too. 

Also, just because we can sustain life indefinitely, but also in misery, both for babies, elderly; and those in between...doesn’t mean we should. It’s not murder to not do so. ?

i guess I just have more friends in those circles than I realize. And those who have been staunchly on the left side of this for a while haven’t said  much. 

Im still trying to play devils advocate in my own brain for now.... ? so I’m looking for a lot of facts and data.

 

 

Yeah, no. Your right wing friends are very incorrect here. The vast majority of abortions that take place after the first trimester are done so due to serious medical reasons. I’d highly suggest looking through the links @Bethella provided. And here are a few personal stories women who obtained late term abortions have shared. They might help you understand why access to abortion at any stage is so important:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-had-an-abortion-to-save-my-baby-from-pain-in-my-state-that-didnt-matter/2017/03/10/1b93bf4e-fa1a-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8c4aa62dd178

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/07/09/our-abortion-story/W4xHhzEVdGqraq0gmGLhlK/amp.html

These women and couples aren’t getting abortions because it’s easy or because having a baby is inconvenient to their lifestyles - these pregnancies are usually desperately wanted and the parent(s)  deeply grieve when it ends.

[nvmbr02]

I only know one person that had to have an abortion after 24 weeks. She was a Christian and she and her husband wanted the baby very much, in fact they had tried for over 3 years to conceive. In her case she had her first ultrasound at 22 weeks (this was normal we only had one u/s and it was usually scheduled between 20 and 23 weeks) and it was found out that the baby had severe deformities and would not survive after birth. She and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy but it took a few weeks for them to get a second opinion and to decide what they wanted to do. It isn't exactly something that everyone can decide right away. I know they consulted their pastor along with their families and prayed a lot over it. 

I know that it is easy to have conflicted feelings when it comes to abortions. I personally do even though I am firmly prochoice. I have lost several pregnancies including one fairly late in the second trimester. But I do strongly believe that terminating a pregnancy is something a woman needs to decide with her doctor and partner/support system if she chooses. When abortion is criminalized it puts extra stress in an already difficult situation, not only for women that choose to terminate but for women that have miscarriages as well. 

[formergothardite]

8 hours ago, BobJonesBabe said:

I guess I do have concern if people are truly terminating pregnancies later in pregnancy out of convenience? Which in the narrative I heard for most of my life...100% of abortions were for convenience. Even if 25% were, though? 

I heard that too but it is a false narrative that is just part of the anti-choice propaganda machine. People don't have late term abortions for fun despite what we were told growing up. 

[smittykins]

To me, it’s similar to when the Reich-to-lifers say “Only *insert infinitesimally small number here* percent of rapes result in pregnancy.”  ONE is too many.

[BobJonesBabe]

I agree with so much of this, and at least understand.

I also find it interesting that even among those who I assume have alternative views, there isn't much pushback to the narrative that the right-wing creates and perpetuates. Being on the "other side" of most issues now, though, I do understand...because it's just so crazy and even mentioning an alternative view is like "casting pearls before swine."  For someone like me, just to hear "this isn't open license to kill unborn children; it's decriminalization of pregnancy termination" would have helped me SO much. 

However, I also have a friend whose baby was given a terminal diagnosis, and she chose to keep the pregnancy. Her baby had a chromosomal disorder and he was born deformed and had already died prematurely in the womb. She could have terminated at like 12-14 weeks. But instead carried into past the 32 week mark. She's heralded as a hero amongst the community she's in. But it was still very traumatic. But it's often used as a testimony for her making the "choice" for life. (Which is a tiny bit ironic, as if regulations like this were not repealed, then she wouldn't have actually had a choice.) So, I guess, for every story like above, the other side would just point to stories like hers? 

In another case, a missionary wife and mother of 5 found out she was pregnant when she found out she had cancer. 
She chose the baby and died, leaving her children -- now 6 -- without a mother. But again, hero. (The husband has already remarried a young, beautiful, childless woman). And I've seen this happen at least 3 other times in my circles. (And all the men have remarried ?)

Thanks to everyone whose given feedback! 

[Imrlgoddess]

Here's the text if anyone is interested:

https://www.news10.com/news/local-news/full-text-read-the-full-text-of-the-reproductive-heath-act/1718439748

My FB timeline is exploding with OMG's and adoption posts.  Ironically....none of the people posting about adoption have ever attempted it nor will they.  

[formergothardite]

36 minutes ago, BobJonesBabe said:

I also find it interesting that even among those who I assume have alternative views, there isn't much pushback to the narrative that the right-wing creates and perpetuates.

It is hard to push back when one side won't accept any facts. I've pretty much given up in real life. No matter what facts you present they just end up screaming baby killer at you and it is pointless. 

 

1 minute ago, Imrlgoddess said:

My FB timeline is exploding with OMG's and adoption posts.  Ironically....none of the people posting about adoption have ever attempted it nor will they.  

I have one person who has been posting adoption not abortion who adopted, but she only wanted to adopt a white newborn girl and she managed to do so. No way she would have adopted a child with severe special needs. 

[Imrlgoddess]

9 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I have one person who has been posting adoption not abortion who adopted, but she only wanted to adopt a white newborn girl and she managed to do so. No way she would have adopted a child with severe special needs.

I think that's the part that bothers me the most....just behind the whole "martyrdom" bit for women who forfeit their lives for that of a child that may or may not make it.  Even those who demand the pregnancy carry all the way out so they can adopt the child only want perfect children.  The argument I kept seeing in the news articles was "there will be an increase in abortions".  To me that says there are people out there who acknowledge there are more non-viable pregnancies than they wanted to admit.  

Sadly this is the only place I can discuss this with any civility, the few times I defended planned parenthood on FB I was attacked from all angles.  But I never go after them when I know they're spreading hearsay and propaganda.  

[Alisamer]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I heard that too but it is a false narrative that is just part of the anti-choice propaganda machine. People don't have late term abortions for fun despite what we were told growing up. 

@BobJonesBabe  It may help to think clearly about what a late-term abortion truly entails. At minimum, there is travel for almost all people, as there are so few providers that do them. It's not an in-and-out procedure, it usually takes a couple days at minimum. It's not comfortable. It can be painful. It costs five figures in the US, NOT counting travel costs and a hotel to stay in for up to a week while having the procedure done at a clinic. The very, very lucky ones can get it done at a hospital, but most have to travel to one of the one or two clinics in the US that do the procedure. And almost always, these are babies who are wanted. They have names, they have nurseries being set up for them. But, they are going to die. Or, they are going to suffer in the womb, die in pain while being born, or survive in pain a short time and then die. Or the mother will die, likely killing the fetus as well. Or the mother will die, leaving all her children motherless. Imagine, being full-term pregnant with a child you know is not only going to die, but is going to suffer intense pain first. Imagine all the comments from well-meaning people who assume you'll be giving birth to a live, healthy child. Imagine picking out a casket and gravesite, instead of decorating a nursery.

People do NOT have late term abortions for fun, or convenience, or because they just didn't get around to it earlier. It's hard, painful, very expensive, and devastating. And laws that limit abortion make it MORE painful and difficult. If a problem is discovered just days before the limit on legal abortion, that severely limits what can be done to confirm the problem, and forces parents to make a decision quickly or lose the choice entirely. A day can be the difference between having a procedure in a local hospital with your doctor, and having to fly halfway across the country and spend days in an unfamiliar hotel with no family nearby to support you. 

Women need to be able to make their own decisions about their own healthcare. Currently people cannot be forced to vaccinate their children. They cannot be forced to be organ donors, even after they have died, even if it means someone will die without their donation. They cannot be forced to donate blood, even if they have a super-rare blood type and someone else will die without it. But women CAN be forced to carry dying fetuses to term, even if the baby is suffering. Even if the woman herself will die. Even if the fetus is guaranteed to die with her. This is not OK. People have autonomy over their own bodies, and abortion laws restrict that autonomy. 

[GreyhoundFan]

10 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

But, they are going to die. Or, they are going to suffer in the womb, die in pain while being born, or survive in pain a short time and then die.

I remember reading an article several years ago about a woman who had an abortion at eight months. She desperately wanted the child, but the fetus was diagnosed very late with severe anomalies that were incompatible with life. The child would die hours or days after birth. She asked the doctor if the baby would just sleep all the time. I remember the quote from the article: "the doctor looked uncomfortable and said that babies with this issue are normally in such pain that they can't sleep." That sealed it for her, she didn't want to subject the child to such a fate. She and her husband borrowed $50K from her parents so they could fly to one of the three providers who would help. The procedure took a couple of days and was painful.

 

15 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

Women need to be able to make their own decisions about their own healthcare. Currently people cannot be forced to vaccinate their children. They cannot be forced to be organ donors, even after they have died, even if it means someone will die without their donation. They cannot be forced to donate blood, even if they have a super-rare blood type and someone else will die without it. But women CAN be forced to carry dying fetuses to term, even if the baby is suffering. Even if the woman herself will die. Even if the fetus is guaranteed to die with her. This is not OK. People have autonomy over their own bodies, and abortion laws restrict that autonomy. 

I couldn't agree more.

[NotQuiteMotY]

1 hour ago, BobJonesBabe said:

However, I also have a friend whose baby was given a terminal diagnosis, and she chose to keep the pregnancy. Her baby had a chromosomal disorder and he was born deformed and had already died prematurely in the womb. She could have terminated at like 12-14 weeks. But instead carried into past the 32 week mark. She's heralded as a hero amongst the community she's in. But it was still very traumatic. But it's often used as a testimony for her making the "choice" for life. (Which is a tiny bit ironic, as if regulations like this were not repealed, then she wouldn't have actually had a choice.) So, I guess, for every story like above, the other side would just point to stories like hers? 

If it was truly the right choice for her, then no one can tell her it was the wrong one. But it's not the right choice, or even a choice at all, for a lot of women. And that's the problem.

@Alisamer said it all very well up thread.

[emscm]

@Alisamer I wish I could love your post 1,000 times. 

I live in NYS and have spent the last few days watching my Facebook timeline crowd itself with misinformation and willful ignorance. The two most infuriating recent posts I’ve seen 1) blame Chuck Shumer (NYS Senator at the federal level, who could not possibly have had anything to do with this law passed at the state level) posted by a relative from Kentucky, and 2) suggest that just like the Amish are religiously exempt from paying into Social Security, other Christians should receive a tax exemption from any of their dollars going toward abortion, posted by a former coworker who lives in Maryland. 

I sometimes feel like I put myself into an echo chamber by avoiding others’ opinions, but the sheer amount of tone-deafness and refusal to acknowledge the actual language of the law and its implications is making me feel as if I have no other choice. 

[formergothardite]

On 1/24/2019 at 11:39 AM, Alisamer said:

People do NOT have late term abortions for fun, or convenience, or because they just didn't get around to it earlier. It's hard, painful, very expensive, and devastating.

This is so true. @BobJonesBabe, if you haven't seen it I recommend the documentary After Tiller, which is about the four remaining late term abortion providers and how they handled things after Tiller was killed. I know that I always got the impression that late term abortions were done in shady places with doctors who pushed everyone to have an abortion and didn't care about the women, but this documentary showed how wrong this is. While they didn't reveal names or faces, they showed some of the women seeking late term abortions and it is heartbreaking. Most of them were sitting there sobbing because they wanted this baby and had found out that if born the baby was going to suffer. All the doctors showed such compassion and made sure that this was what the women really wanted. 

I didn't realize until I watched that how awful the anti-choice movement was. They systematically target these people and try to hurt them as much as possible. One of the doctor had daughters who had horses and one day anti-choice people burned his horses alive. Even the children of the landlord who owned the property where the abortion clinic is were targeted. They go after children in hopes that if they hurt the kids enough the parents will finally give in to them. One of the doctors even had his elderly mother harassed. 

Calling the movement a terrorist movement isn't out of line. The late term abortion doctors are not the monsters we were told they were, the real monsters are in the anti-choice movement. 

[GreyhoundFan]

14 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Calling the movement a terrorist movement isn't out of line. The late term abortion doctors are not the monsters we were told they were, the real monsters are in the anti-choice movement. 

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

I also recommend "After Tiller". It is eye-opening.

[dharmapunk]

Disclaimer: I am from Europe and I have no knowledge about US laws. But from what I have read in the media, there are two things that don't make sense to me.

The first is the part about "if the life of the mother is in danger" - where I live, once the baby is potentially viable, they would deliver the baby early, but attempt to save both the babies and the mother's  lives. I can't think of a situation where it would make a difference for the mother's health if she gives birth to a dead baby instead of a living one.

The second part I don't understand is the fact that the number of late term abortions could probably be reduced to almost zero if prenatal care was free, like it is in my country. By the time I was twenty weeks pregnant, I had had three ultrasound examinations (first time, low risk pregnancy). The vast majority of severe deformities would have been picked up on one of those. While I am pro choice, I think that late terms abortions should be a last resort.  Yet I get the impression that most of the people protetsting the law are against mandatory health insurance.  Very confusing from an outsider's perspective!

[Ali]

3 hours ago, dharmapunk said:

The first is the part about "if the life of the mother is in danger" - where I live, once the baby is potentially viable, they would deliver the baby early, but attempt to save both the babies and the mother's  lives. I can't think of a situation where it would make a difference for the mother's health if she gives birth to a dead baby instead of a living one.

I wonder if this was written to protect the mother. Just because a 25 weeker can survive does not mean it will. Michelle Duggar had no guarantee of a happy ending with Josie.