People is reporting that Michelle Duggar miscarried MERGED

[goldennotebook]

mrss2004 has still failed to substantively answer how mediation could possibly benefit parties who are not willing to sit down, or feel endangered about sitting down together, or how a mediation process could be streamlined so as to not seriously affect the risk and severity of an abortion, and how this mediation would be accessible and truly objective.

it's also unclear then if there would need to be an additional law forcing women to inform a male partner about the fetus. mrs2004, do you think that would have to be required as well? because someone can't exactly request mediation if they are unaware of their status as a potential father.

she's also failed to tell us if this mediation is only one-way - convincing a woman to carry a fetus to term - or if a male partner can request mediation to convince a woman to abort her fetus.

if it was possible for there to be any substantive data about the effects of mediation on a woman's decision (because it's ultimately a woman's decision, although it's great if a couple are on the same page), my guess would be that the underlying issues creating an impasse could not possibly be resolved in the few hours that such a mediation would entail. my further guess would be that such mediation would really be a tool to bully or shame a woman into making a decision the male partner wants - almost a state-sanctioned approval of classic abuse and manipulation tactics.

on the other hand, you know what actually is helpful?? impartial options counseling for women making these decisions. planned parenthood provides this and there are several national hotlines that provide this service to women

[NurseNell]

i am beyond frustrated, I can not download either of those books as ebooks because I am outside of the US!! DAMN!!! Can anyone think of anyway I can do it?? I am in Australia, I really would like to read them. I guess if all else fails I'll buy the paperbacks, but I prefer my ereader. SOS fellow FJ'ers!!

IF I still have the book about the Oregon woman I can send it to you. I won't get a chance to look until after Christmas. I'd send it book rate. I was in the post office today and a woman had a medium sized package, I'd guess about 12X12 inches and maybe 2 inches high. $41 to mail to Australia!!!!

Some older books aren't available on ereaders. I just ordered 6 from Amazon, all WWII no-fiction, survival stories, none were available for my kindle.

[hathorlive]

So why didn't you get a different doctor?

Alas, I live in a rural state and this doctor was an hour away. Going to another doctor would involve a two hour one way trip. It's hard enough to find doctor's that accept your insurance (I have a great plan but have empathy for those women with more limited means) without all the preaching and moralizing of the doctors themselves.

OMG, are you my long lost twin?

I tried since I had my first appt at 18 to get someone to agree to tie my tubes. By the time I was 33 - 15 years after I first asked - I basically gave up. Thanks to hathtolive to remind me to get back on my bandwagon.

Just like you, I am not at all suited to motherhood, hate children and really haven't the slightest interest in having children.

If I got pregnant I would have an abortion immediately. And I resent anyone telling me that I don't know my own mind and I need counselling and information and two days to wait and to listen to the father drone on and on in some stupid mediation. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Would ever change my mind. Yes, there is something wrong with even a 1 hour mandatory waiting period for women who want or need an abortion. It supposes that women are too stupid to be of sound mind when it comes to their reproductive choices. It's misogynistic and cruel.

I think what insults me the most is that there is something defective in me that "time" will cure. I told my mother when I was 12 that I was not getting married. I like men. I love sex. I just don't like being around someone 24-7. A child is a huge commitment and I resent the notion that I should try it out to "fix" my anti-child feelings. Even my mother celebrates the fact that I live in an age where I don't have to get married and have kids.

When my coworkers were telling me that once you have your own, you'll love children, my closest coworker, a born again Christian, said if I got pregnant that he'd drive me to the clinic. Because he understands that I don't have a maternal bone in my body. While the coworkers all sat back in stunned silence (we HINTED at abortion) the two of us snickered for days about it.

I support all my friends who want children just as they support me for asking restaurants for "no smoking, no children".

I love your snark, Giz, so we can be twins. And I don't have to worry about you bringing kids to cocktail hour.

We need to take an approach like the NRA. A compromise is a path to no freedom to chose. We've put up with counseling and sonograms and "look at the wiggle on the sonogram (or whatever the heck you call those things) and we're now in a box where we need a papal dispensation to get an abortion. And it's got to stop. No mediation. No men folk need apply. That's why the second question on the first date should be "pro-choice, my choice?" right after asking for his credit score.

Gee why am I still single????

[tropicalmama]

IF I still have the book about the Oregon woman I can send it to you. I won't get a chance to look until after Christmas. I'd send it book rate. I was in the post office today and a woman had a medium sized package, I'd guess about 12X12 inches and maybe 2 inches high. $41 to mail to Australia!!!!

Some older books aren't available on ereaders. I just ordered 6 from Amazon, all WWII no-fiction, survival stories, none were available for my kindle

I know the postage between here and the US is ridiculous at best and a rip off at worse! I can get the paperback copies here I just wanted them in e format if I could. I could find them but they wouldn't let me download cause I wasn't in the US...Stupid technology. I will have to order them when the new year comes, at least within Australia postage is reasonable :)

[Vex]

Mrs S2004 - Thank you very much for that response.

I think the idea of mediation is an interesting one, although I don't think it's something that can be implimented if it's mandatory. I would like to see places like Planned Parenthood offer specific councelling for couples (or men and women who are not couples) who are unsure of how to proceed with the pregnancy. I would like each option to be given equal attention, and if the man wanted primary custody and the woman was okay with carrying the child to term, I would like there to be legally binding contracts that ensure the man will take care of mother until she has recuperated and to take care of the baby before and after the birth.

I agree with a lot of what you say, in that ideally it should happen or be an option. However, I also believe that nothing is more important than a woman having total autonomy over her body and the freedom to make the choices that are right for her.

[Mama Mia]

emmidahl.. that is very odd that you don't have insurance that covers abortion. I am assuming this must be yet another thing that varies by state. In this recent letter from the California Insurance commissioner ( objecting to some federal legislation that would restrict abortion coverage through private insurers ) -- the commissioner states that currently over 80% of private employer sponsored health insurance covers abortion. I have never heard of private health insurance that does not cover reproductive care - certainly the major ones here - Kaiser, Blue Cross etc do... perhaps that is regulated by state requirement ? I think that places like Catholic Charities and other religious institutions are not required to provide insurance that covers reproductive health -but otherwise I believe it is a requirement. That is probably changing with all the various federal regulations that have been proposed.

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0 ... terHR3.pdf

In the last link, with the breakdowns of abortion paid by medi-cal by type it had the numbers of abortions paid for right there, on every page. This is a publication put out by the state.. not some pro-life extremist site like the one you used.

I find it mind boggling that someone would not drive an extra couple of hours in order to get a tubal ligation if it means a lifetime without having to worry about birth control. Back in the 1960's I know my father couldn't get a vasectomy until he was over 21, and his wife agreed (even though he had two kids ). I have occasionally heard of women being advised not to have a tubal ligation until they are 30 or some other arbitrary number, or had x number of children. But the only refusal I have ever heard of was in Catholic Hospitals.

As far as the mediation - again - yes, obviously that would not be a perfect system, but I do not think this is JUST about the woman. I think this attitude of the man having absolutely no vested interest in the topic no less odd than the fundie idea that the woman is just the vessel that carries the mans' sperm. Yes, the risk lies with the woman, and that is why in the end it is ultimately her decision - but the man's role isn't just as a bystander.

[valsa]

Mrs. S2004, I'd still like an answer to my question. If a man can force a woman into mediation, can other relatives? What about the grandparents? It's their DNA and grandchild at stake. Don't grandparents who want grandchildren suffer if a desired grandchild is aborted?

You also didn't answer other people's question about forcing mediation if the woman wants to keep the baby. Shouldn't a man be able to make his case about wanting her to get an abortion?

[Letgo]

I think what insults me the most is that there is something defective in me that "time" will cure.

I don't think people mean you are "defective" if you don't want children. (At least, I would hope people don't really feel that way-and feel the need to tell you that.) I think many people just realize that, over time, we often change our opinions, plans, goals, etc. Many times at FJ we have commented on how young some fundies are when they get married and how they have no clue at 18 or 20 of the person they will become. The same might apply to those who are sure at a young age that they don't want children. You may be positive you never want to be a mother and forever feel that way, but doctors have no way to know that you will not have a change of heart some day. I think they might be afraid of future lawsuits if they sterilize an 18 year old. And some women do start to feel their biological clocks ticking as they near a certain age.

I think it is great when women acknowledge that they are not maternally inclined and remain child free. I know a woman with FOUR children who openly tells people she hates her kids and hates being a mother. She has hated motherhood since the first child was born. And she needed three more to be sure? She makes me so angry. Her children are so needy and starved for affection. She is financially secure and can afford nannies, but chooses young women who are as apathetic and uninvolved as she is. It's awful.

[Mama Mia]

Valsa - No I don't think the grandparents etc. should be able to have a say in mediation or in the decision to have/ not have / raise/ not raise a child. Just like they don't have those rights once the child is born -- a grandparent doesn't get to decide if a baby is put up for adoption, or what medical care the child receives. The grandparent isn't obligated to pay child support (well except sometimes with minor parents who are on aid.. but that is a whole other rant ). Basically the grandparent has no rights, or responsibilities, that they do not choose to have and that the parent(s) agree to. This is totally different than the mother and father of a child who do have these rights and responsibilities. As a grandparent I think it would be awesome if my grown ( or even teen ) children realized that I know everything and did everything the way I want it ( obviously I am kidding ).. but that isn't how it works. I don't believe in parental notification laws for teens seeking reproductive care for this reason either -- bottom line the mother and father are the ones who are the parents .. not the grandparents.

And no, I don't think it is the same situation for a man to try to force a woman to HAVE an abortion -- because the ball is ALREADY in her court. She can have the child when he wants the abortion and she is still legally responsible for it's care , if she has the abortion when he desires to raise the child - he is not having the option of taking on that care. He can't make a case five years down the line that now he wants custody -- because there is no child to have custody of. Many people seem to think that he should have the option of not paying child support and terminating parental rights at that point -- I don't know what I think about that, I don't have a firm opinion- but in general it would seem the child should be entitled to financial support from both parents.

I do think in general it would be great if counseling was available free of charge to any couple/parents/ potential parents in order to work through their options, find resources, or just resolution and coping skills whatever the outcome is. But I think lots of things should be provided that aren't.

[EmmieJ]

certainly the major ones here - Kaiser,

Kaiser covers abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if your doctor believes the pregnancy would endanger your life. That's it.

It's sad that we're returning to a time when there will have to be an underground for women seeking abortions. I'm one of the "lucky" ones in that I have a difficult time getting pregnant. I had one pregnancy, one birth, one child. I'm now approaching menopause, and will be glad when I can once again have sex without worrying about becoming pregnant.

Women need access to affordable birth control, and they need access to safe, legal abortion. I very nearly had a rift with my sister over this issue, because she believes abortion is wrong. But when her fundie friends started in with the racist comments about Pres. Obama, I think it made her question their "christianity", and now she's not so vehement in her abortion stance anymore either.

[JesusFightClub]

Mrs S2004, two further related questions.

1. You said there should be a binding legal agreement if mediation came out that the mum would carry the child and dad would raise it and support mum prebirth. What do you envisage the sanctions would be on dad if he did not fulfil his side of the bargain? Civil or criminal punishment, as he has certainly caused her bodily harm?

2. What, precisely, is in it for mum here?

She gets to experience bodily distortion and preg side effects for months while carrying an unwanted child. Even if she bonds with the baby after it shows up, she relinquished all rights so too bad. She will also be pilloried as a bad, wicked, coldhearted woman for giving the baby up, whereas dad will be Hero Dad for raising a child at all, let alone saving tiny cute baby from abortion.

If it's a slow news day he could even get his photo in the paper clutching the baby and looking manful and noble, perhaps with a quote. "I don't hate Jo. She's just a woman who made some very bad choices."

What does she get out of this mediation except the chance to be in a lot of pain and serve as a human incubator, after which everyone judges her and finds her wanting?

[Sola]

Mrs S2004, I understand that you feel the father should have the chance to raise the baby himself with the mother severing all ties. This to you is a solution to abortion where the father wants the baby but the mother doesn't and wishes to end the pregnancy. You feel that mediation is the key and that might help solve the problem. Would that be a simplified sum up of your argument?

I'd like to ask your views on a situation which happened in the UK a few years ago. A wife had cancer which required removal of her ovaries. Before she had the surgery she had eggs harvested from her ovaries and these there then fertilised by her husband's sperm and then frozen for future use once she was cancer free. Shortly after that the couple split up and divorced. The now ex-husband refused his ex-wife permission to use the embryos and insisted on them being destroyed, he stated that he did not wish to become a parent with his ex-wife. The woman went through every court in the UK and even to the European court of Human Rights to overturn his decision. She failed and the embryos were destroyed, ending her chances of ever being a biological mother to a child.

In your opinion should the ex-wife have been given permission to implant the embryos, thereby forcing the ex-husband into fatherhood against his wishes, but fulfilling her desire to be a mother?

[Mama Mia]

1) I would hope some sort of civil sanction -- primarily as I think criminal sanctions and particularly jail time should be reserved for violent offenses.

2) I already stated that I don't think the mother should have to have her parental rights terminated - if she has the child and decides she wants to pursue joint custody -- she could certainly do so. Custody arrangements change all the time. Hero Dad ? Because he is a single parent ? You do know there already are single fathers right ? While it is much more common for mothers to be a single parent, single fathers are hardly so unusual that they would have a parade and a story in the paper. Mothers without custody of their children are also not so unusual that they will be burned at the stake for heavens sake.

What does she "get" out of it ? Maybe nothing .. do people always have to 'get something' out of every situation ? Maybe she gets a situation similar to an open adoption, maybe she decides that even if it is a pain in the ass for her, she wants the dad to have a shot so the kid can be involved with her family.

What the hell century do you live in that there is some witch hunt because a woman isn't raising her child ? I mean really - that seems so overly melodramatic.

I just looked up Kaiser, in California it does cover abortion. Even the Planned Parenthood site states most private insurance covers abortion.

Sola - yes that pretty nicely sums up my views. Far more coherently than I can evidently portray them.

I have never given much thought to any of the in-vitro / fertilized egg custody disagreements ( although they are fascinating in a sci-fi way )... Just reading what you wrote, and not knowing anything about the actual case I would lean towards the mother being able to implant the eggs. Primarily because they both went through the procedure with the knowledge that this was her only opportunity to have her own children. She does not have the opportunity to have children later with someone else ( or with donated sperm ). If he was aware of this at the time it seems that would give precedence over his new desire to not have children with this particular person.

Shouldn't they have some sort of contract or agreement for what-if situations when there are frozen embryo's ?

[Sky_Diamond]

Does anyone think the lack of mention of J'Caleb could be evidence that he was not the only other miscarriage they have had?

[garciarodrigez]

Does anyone think the lack of mention of J'Caleb could be evidence that he was not the only other miscarriage they have had?

Never thought of that.

[Sola]

1) I would hope some sort of civil sanction -- primarily as I think criminal sanctions and particularly jail time should be reserved for violent offenses.

2) I already stated that I don't think the mother should have to have her parental rights terminated - if she has the child and decides she wants to pursue joint custody -- she could certainly do so. Custody arrangements change all the time. Hero Dad ? Because he is a single parent ? You do know there already are single fathers right ? While it is much more common for mothers to be a single parent, single fathers are hardly so unusual that they would have a parade and a story in the paper. Mothers without custody of their children are also not so unusual that they will be burned at the stake for heavens sake.

What does she "get" out of it ? Maybe nothing .. do people always have to 'get something' out of every situation ? Maybe she gets a situation similar to an open adoption, maybe she decides that even if it is a pain in the ass for her, she wants the dad to have a shot so the kid can be involved with her family.

What the hell century do you live in that there is some witch hunt because a woman isn't raising her child ? I mean really - that seems so overly melodramatic.

I just looked up Kaiser, in California it does cover abortion. Even the Planned Parenthood site states most private insurance covers abortion.

Sola - yes that pretty nicely sums up my views. Far more coherently than I can evidently portray them.

I have never given much thought to any of the in-vitro / fertilized egg custody disagreements ( although they are fascinating in a sci-fi way )... Just reading what you wrote, and not knowing anything about the actual case I would lean towards the mother being able to implant the eggs. Primarily because they both went through the procedure with the knowledge that this was her only opportunity to have her own children. She does not have the opportunity to have children later with someone else ( or with donated sperm ). If he was aware of this at the time it seems that would give precedence over his new desire to not have children with this particular person.

Shouldn't they have some sort of contract or agreement for what-if situations when there are frozen embryo's ?

Here's the Wiki article about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_v_United_Kingdom

It raises some very interesting points I think. Very thought provoking.

[valsa]

Valsa - No I don't think the grandparents etc. should be able to have a say in mediation or in the decision to have/ not have / raise/ not raise a child. Just like they don't have those rights once the child is born

Mrs. S2004, according to current law the father of a fetus has no rights regarding it. Your mediation plan would essentially extend paternal rights to cover fetuses, stretching the law to places it does not currently exist. Since we’re already changing laws, why shouldn’t we go the extra step to extend rights to grandparents when it comes to fetuses? All your reasoning regarding why fathers should have rights (DNA and wanting a child) also applies to the grandparents. Also, in cases where parents don’t want to take care of actual (born) children and also don’t want to make adoption plans, the courts usually offer custody of the child to family first (assuming they're found fit) If we’re treating the fetus like a child for custody purposes, why shouldn’t the same criteria apply?

She can have the child when he wants the abortion and she is still legally responsible for it's care

Not true- both parents are legally responsible. The mother could come after him for child support at any time and he’d be responsible for paying it, even if he didn’t want the child from the very beginning. Even if she never asked for support, many places are going after non-child support paying fathers if the mothers ever apply for public assistance while claiming the child. And most judges I know of will not let fathers sign away their rights (and financial responsibilities) unless a stepfather is going to be adopting the child and taking the responsibilities on himself. It makes sense to allow fathers to demand mediation if they would prefer an abortion, assuming you think it’s right that they can demand one if they want to keep the kid. You can’t have it both ways.

[valsa]

You may be positive you never want to be a mother and forever feel that way, but doctors have no way to know that you will not have a change of heart some day. I think they might be afraid of future lawsuits if they sterilize an 18 year old.

I think that's a cop-out from a historically patriarchal profession to cover their long running attitude that women shouldn't have the right to make decisions for themselves and their bodies/fertility. I gave away an ORGAN from my body at 21 years old and no doctor refused to take it just because I might have a change of heart one day.

[formergothardite]

So Mrs2004 does think it is okay for a man to force a woman (by using mediation) into having a more dangerous and complicated abortion when what she wanted was a very early abortion. Right? So in effect, this mediation can be used by men to endanger women's lives against their will.

[goldennotebook]

I do think in general it would be great if counseling was available free of charge to any couple/parents/ potential parents in order to work through their options, find resources, or just resolution and coping skills whatever the outcome is. But I think lots of things should be provided that aren't.

You're describing options counselling, which is available through Planned Parenthood and is already available on a sliding scale. People who are trained in options counselling, which would include PP staff, are impartial in describing the reality of options a woman or couple could take.

Your idea still doesn't really make sense as it's highly unlikely that government-mandated mediation (do you believe it should be mandated if a party refuses to participate?) would seriously change the mind of either party, particularly that of the person whose body this actually concerns. You should also really address freegothardite's point about using mediation as a stalling tactic - abortions do become more and more dangerous the later term they are. Many medical doctors will not do second-term abortions either.

[treemom]

Uh.. except emmiedahl that I haven't been wrong about any of the California abortion issues and you have huge reading comprehension problems. The last link I sent you states, clearly, in plain English, that over 80,000 abortions are paid for by medi-cal in California in 2007 . Yet you say that maybe some small number is covered ? Are you really that entrenched in being right ? That seems like a fairly large number. Even for a massively huge state it is a large number. Private insurance is going to cover the cost for the majority of women who are not under 200% of poverty level, and are not minors.

Yes, some women may very well not have private health insurance, may be over 200% of poverty and be adults - those women may have to pay for the abortion themselves. Although most places also have a sliding scale.

Less than 1% of California women live in a county that does not have an abortion provider --- so yes, abortion access is pretty damn easy.

Let's just assume everything you say about California is correct. Do you understand that doesn't exists in the vast majorities of the country? I didn't haul my ass to Kansas to look at the wheat.

[treemom]

emmidahl.. that is very odd that you don't have insurance that covers abortion. I am assuming this must be yet another thing that varies by state. In this recent letter from the California Insurance commissioner ( objecting to some federal legislation that would restrict abortion coverage through private insurers ) -- the commissioner states that currently over 80% of private employer sponsored health insurance covers abortion. I have never heard of private health insurance that does not cover reproductive care - certainly the major ones here - Kaiser, Blue Cross etc do... perhaps that is regulated by state requirement ? I think that places like Catholic Charities and other religious institutions are not required to provide insurance that covers reproductive health -but otherwise I believe it is a requirement. That is probably changing with all the various federal regulations that have been proposed.

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0 ... terHR3.pdf

In the last link, with the breakdowns of abortion paid by medi-cal by type it had the numbers of abortions paid for right there, on every page. This is a publication put out by the state.. not some pro-life extremist site like the one you used.

I find it mind boggling that someone would not drive an extra couple of hours in order to get a tubal ligation if it means a lifetime without having to worry about birth control. Back in the 1960's I know my father couldn't get a vasectomy until he was over 21, and his wife agreed (even though he had two kids ). I have occasionally heard of women being advised not to have a tubal ligation until they are 30 or some other arbitrary number, or had x number of children. But the only refusal I have ever heard of was in Catholic Hospitals.

As far as the mediation - again - yes, obviously that would not be a perfect system, but I do not think this is JUST about the woman. I think this attitude of the man having absolutely no vested interest in the topic no less odd than the fundie idea that the woman is just the vessel that carries the mans' sperm. Yes, the risk lies with the woman, and that is why in the end it is ultimately her decision - but the man's role isn't just as a bystander.

Every federal employee in california has insurance that won't cover elective abortions. And every fedex employee as well. You are totally unaware of the rest of the world, outside of california having insurance that covers an abortion is the exception, not the rule.

[treemom]

And consider many states have one abortion provider, or like Mississippi there is one provider who flies in weekly. You waiting period mediation could add weeks to the time a women decides on abortion and can procure it.

[goldennotebook]

MrsS2004, it sounds like you're in a situation in life where driving a few hours to get a tubal ligation - to say nothing of the potential expensive of such an ordeal, days off, time off, recovery, any additional fees - is something you can manage to do financially. In that position, I'd agree with you.

But most people aren't in that position. Half of Americans are classified as a "low income" household, and approximately 1/5 are on or under the poverty line. Positions that aren't full-time or salaried - if you can get one at all - pay by the hour, have low wages, no insurance, and don't exactly approve of taking off work for a few days for an invasive elective surgery.

It's hard enough to get an abortion in this country, your perception of California notwithstanding. You can't just dismiss the experiences of women different than you as "they aren't trying hard enough". Not everyone has the resources that you appear to.

[StarrieEyedKat]

Mrs. S2004, according to current law the father of a fetus has no rights regarding it. Your mediation plan would essentially extend paternal rights to cover fetuses, stretching the law to places it does not currently exist. Since we’re already changing laws, why shouldn’t we go the extra step to extend rights to grandparents when it comes to fetuses? All your reasoning regarding why fathers should have rights (DNA and wanting a child) also applies to the grandparents. Also, in cases where parents don’t want to take care of actual (born) children and also don’t want to make adoption plans, the courts usually offer custody of the child to family first (assuming they're found fit) If we’re treating the fetus like a child for custody purposes, why shouldn’t the same criteria apply?

Actually, depending on the state and situation, Grandparents do have certain rights, such as visitation, should they choose to pursue them.