Monday, 19 March 2012
-
The Devil Went Down To Georgia - Forcing Women To Carry Stillborn Fetuses Like Cows Do
There's some bad news for folks who beat pregnant women in Georgia. He'll get not less than one, and no more than ten years, for committing a criminal abortion, if the pregnancy is "lost." That seems as though it's a positive turning point for women's rights. Sadly, this couldn't be further from the truth.
The Georgia House of Representatives voted 102-65 to enhance definitions of abortion, and when or how one may be carried out. You can read the bill here: http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/954
Now before we start shaking our fists to argue which side of the abortion coin we're on, let's check out how one of the sponsors, Terry England, argued his. Because it's not my intent to discuss Roe v. Wade.
He used language comparing the human experience of pregnancy loss to that of his farm cows and pigs. He told a poignant story of a "salt of the earth" man who said, "You tell those folks down there when they quit killing babies, they can have every chicken I've got."
The language of the bill says that the dividing point is 20 weeks. At 20 weeks, any termination must be conducted in a manner which would give the fetus a chance to live. If it lived, medical aid must be rendered. It's actually 24 weeks that fetuses (babies) have a chance of viability, though the odds are low. Any premature baby surviving any birth that early would likely have lifelong problems, but I digress. If labor was electively induced at 20 weeks for whatever reason, how would the birth be handled? If the situation was due to a dangerous health problem for mother or child, or the baby had some diagnosis, is it really compassionate to stage a scene of emergent medical care to save an infant who has no chance of survival? No chance, twice over.
Why would anyone choose to torture a grieving mother who has been told her baby (fetus) has a diagnosis of some sort that is incompatible with life? Because this happens, every day. For unknown reasons, a pregnancy may end, but those mothers seem to get a pass. Except their medical records must be made available to the district attorney. As though Georgian women who make pregnancy related medical choices are presumed guilty?
Then this part gets me: "...Terminate that pregnancy unless...termination of pregnancy in that manner would pose...greater risk. No greater risk shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the pregnant woman or that the pregnant woman will...engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."
Oh, my! I thought that calling women "hysterical" (controlled by the uterus) went out decades ago. Don't think that no woman is not emotional after a sexual assault. Or after finding out her baby died in-utero. Or learning that her baby will more than likely not even survive pregnancy. Some moms will never have the experience of taking home a baby, losing the uterus along with the fetus. Don't they deserve some respect and sensitivity?
Punishing women who want, or need, for whatever reasons, to exercise their right to choose is really what that last part is about. But why am I surprised? A man stood up, and seriously argued his bill by comparing women to cows, pigs, and chickens. No words of compassion or kindness. No sensitivity or gentility. No apparent life experience losing a pregnancy at any stage, for any reason. None for mentally ill women who accidentally became pregnant, and fear passing along the illness. None for premature babies who should be loved and held and photographed by their parents as they gently pass away, not tortured by medical intervention after induction.
And most sadly, 101 of Terry England's pals thought nothing wrong with comparing women to dumb animals, and babies to chickens. Who would stand by and watch a pregnant woman attempt suicide, and charge her with criminal abortion if she survived and the pregnancy did not. That is the choice in this matter that is offensive to me- what about you?
See for yourself here: http://bettergeorgia.com/2012/03/06/video-rep-terry-england-compares-women-to-cows-pigs-chickens/
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to momaroo's Momaroo Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in momaroo's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (56)
It is astonishing how people want to retract back to the Dark Ages.
This was hard to read, confusing.
Maybe it's just me.
I don't see how this is related to carrying a stillborn baby?But I'm having a hard time figuring out what the point of this article is? And? Did the same person write this who wrote the article about the teacher getting fired for his weird, violent math problems?
It just seems like an article meant to inflame. Sorry, folks.
Wait what? Any termination must give the fetus a chance to live? The fuck kind of shit is that?
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - I agree. An outline would have served the author well in this case...
I didn't follow any of this. Where does it say anything about forcing a woman to carry a stillborn child? I mean, other than the title meant to inflame and not inform.
I'm confused.
I'm so confused as well! Glad i'm not the only one. I couldn't even read the whole thing, because half-way through I still wasn't sure what the OP was saying.
@Kimis2cute@xanga - Seriously I gave up, too. And after I commented originally, I tried again. This time from the middle on. I got through it, but it still didn't say anything about carrying around a stillborn baby etc. (Not well done, I don't get his point, and I'm not sure anyone will.)
This post makes no sense. At all. And considering that I'm not the only one who thinks so, I'm inclined to believe it's not due to my poor attention span and tendency to skim.
Write better. That is all.
oy.. my 16 month old makes more sense then this post.
my head hurts and i just wasted half an hour trying to make sense of this thing.
@the_rocking_of_socks@xanga - @gwacemom - @sarahsmurfette@xanga - @LadyGwenivere@xanga -
Just to clarify, in case any of you were genuinely interested in the topic... I had read a few articles on this issue and the "being forced to carry a stillborn baby" thing is actually part of it, even if it didn't make its way into this post. Essentially, they are seeking to ensure that the "You cannot have an abortion after 20 weeks" would also include cases where the baby will be stillborn, or will not survive birth. So basically, even if it was medically determined at 24 weeks that a woman's fetus was no longer alive, and would be stillborn, it would be illegal to, at that point, have the fetus removed from the woman's body. In some cases, a woman's body will naturally abort a pregnancy that is not viable in a situation like this, but not always. Now, in the event that it didn't, she would have to continue to carry the pregnancy to term until she naturally gave birth to a stillborn baby. I think it's pretty obvious how horrific this is.
The comparison to farm animals used in the title is not a strictly inflammatory remark, it was part of the explanation that was used in the presentation of the bill, where comments were made referring to the fact that it sometimes happens that livestock gives birth to a stillborn and yea, it sucks when that happens, but what else can you do? I have no idea why he thought this was at all relevant to the discussion, and why he thought that there was any way that comparing women to cows and pigs would not be seen as offensive, but again, this is not the title seeking to be inflammatory, these are the remarks that were made.
I think that, regardless of your stance on abortion, we can all agree that forcing a woman to carry a stillborn baby, KNOWING that it is stillborn, and then forcing her to go through childbirth is a horrible emotional and physical toll that is completely unnecessary, and the fact that this was even suggested is pretty scary.
I understand that this post was poorly written, but I do think that it's important for people to recognize what is going on, which is why I took a moment to try and explain.
Wow..First of all..Glad that most people only took away confusion..& didn't bother to actually read this article? Except to point out it didn't go with the title. Sure, the author could have & probably should have used a better title to get their point across.
But can we get over that?
I find it disturbing as all hell that women were compared to nothing more then a farm animal! Terry England..what in the world are you thinking?! This article is just one of many about the bills that are being pass or trying to pass to keep women subservient. That's pretty much the gist of this post for anyone confused. At least that's what I took from it..
@Lost_In_Reverie@xanga - I still believe that this article was written to be inflammatory, or it would have made more sense. And it is still confusing on purpose. Let me tell you why. You cannot say, "So basically, even if it was medically determined at 24 weeks that a woman's fetus was no longer alive, and would be stillborn, it would be illegal to, at that point, have the fetus removed from the woman's body. " Because that would not be a medically-induced abortion. An abortion, as legally and medically defined, is the termination of a pregnancy. If a baby is not alive, it is already naturally aborted, and would not fall under the category of medical abortion. Removal of an already deceased child is not an abortion, nor is it called one.
Therefore, women would never be forced to carry to term an already deceased child - even as declared by this law.
Is it in poor taste to compare it to a farm animal? Yes, I am sure many will take offense to that. But I would wager that of those who are offended, none have ever raised animals like a caring, ethical farmer has. Should any human be compared to an animal, I don't personally think so. But does the verbiage totally discredit the message? That is probably decided by your stance on abortion.
If I didn't care at all, I would not have commented at all. @syringesofglitter_x@xanga - I did read and RE-read the article. It still does not make sense, nor does the explanation given by Reverie.
I think the piece read just fine... perhaps those bashing the writer, rather than discussing the actual topic at hand, could use all their knowledge in article writing and start coming up with content if they think it all sucks so bad.
Just a thought.
@syringesofglitter_x@xanga - I don't view it as a means of keeping women subservient. I see it as a means of protecting human rights. The rights of a viable human baby. Prior to the point of viability, the law does not count. But after the point of viability, it does. Which I think is a moderate stance.
What is the difference between abortion and infanticide if the only difference is "wanted" or "unwanted"? Viability of life outside of the womb. I think it is a logical piece of legislation, but poorly and distastefully written. What else is new? Politics is all distasteful these days.
@Kalamatula - thank you for your comment. You have no idea what articles are written and submitted. Unless you're the new editor? If so, nice to meet you.
I'm just saying, if you want to write something and inform us of an issue we should be aware of, do it in a way we can READ. For heaven's sake, lots of us here are MOMS who have little ones running around, and we don't have all effing day long to try and decode gibberish.
Just a thought.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - I'm not a new article, but I follow momaroo and read just about every single post. So I'm well aware of whats being posted.
Reading the post above, none of it was "gibberish" and if you referenced the attached, it was pretty clear what it was about... I agree shouldn't take all day to read an article, I'm a mom too, I get that, but In my opinion, this wasn't the case and often see that all people do is complain about the writers? No time to read an article all day, but time to complain? Doesn't add up to me. :)
@Kalamatula - Ok then you must be familiar with me. Hi, I'm a contributor to Momaroo. I have written and posted several articles here.
Not everything submitted gets published, just so you know.
Not sure how you can say any of the above was not gibberish, since so few of us understood the article. But that is your own bias. The two references given? The one on the bottom was not informational, it was a regurgitation of the same (mostly outrage at the comparison to farm animals). The first? The legislation itself, which sorry, no I don't have the time nor the concentration to sit through and read it all. Even while writing you this comment, I'm watching my two little ones in my peripheral vision, as well as listening to them etc. To read legal documents takes concentration, you must at least admit that.
My statement stands. If you want to bring to our collective attention an issue that needs it, submit it in a way we can understand it.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - You're correct in that the removal of a stillborn fetus would not be termed an abortion. However, that's not what is being discussed here. Terry England was speaking in favor of the bill in question covering instances in which a fetus was known to be stillborn, or inviable, and would therefore make the removal of a stillborn fetus illegal. Regardless of whether or not that is deemed an abortion, he sought to have it covered by this law, and made illegal. So I think it's pretty obviously Mr. England that is being inflammatory, not the author.
Here are some further links if I'm still being in any way unclear:
http://blisstree.com/live/georgia-rep-wants-to-force-women-to-carry-stillborn-fetuses-like-cows-do-693/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/womens-reproductive-rights_b_1345214.html
http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981185257
Here is the bill itself for you to peruse:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/123634.pdf
Basically, the bit that says "If your doctor says the abortion is medically necessary, you're allowed to have one" has been crossed out and replaced by a bit that says "You are not allowed to have an abortion unless you fit these specific criteria that are outlined here, and by the way, any sort of mental, emotional, or psychological "reasons" aren't actually reasons and don't count."
Because of the fact that carrying a stillborn to term carries such dangerous health risks, it would appear, in reading the bill, that Mr. England's attempt to have the removal of a stillborn fetus illegalized was thwarted, but I will admit that some of the jargon is repetitive and circular so it can be hard to be certain.
@Lost_In_Reverie@xanga - I was under the impression that "stillborn" meant the baby was already born and was DOA, so to speak.
Not that doctors were afraid the baby wouldn't survive delivery itself?
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - As mentioned in this article, the current limit of viability is 24 weeks, not 20. At 20 weeks, the chance of fetal viability is 0%. That is not an opinion. A 20-week-old fetus is incapable of surviving outside of the womb. So is a 21-week-old fetus. At 22 weeks, there is a miniscule chance of survival, however even at this point, it is almost unheard of to attempt to resuscitate the baby because there is basically no chance of it not being terribly disabled.
So you are wrong in your statement that the law is discussing viable fetuses and human rights, because it isn't, it is discussing a 20-week-old fetus with a 0% outside-the-womb survival rate.
Tell that to my friend Shanda, whose daughter was born at 22 weeks. She's 5 now. She has no handicap or disability.
Why are we arguing over 2 weeks?
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - I guess "stillborn" fetus may not be the best term, perhaps "non-living" fetus would be a bit more clear? Or rather, a fetus that, upon its birth, will be stillborn.
@Lost_In_Reverie@xanga - Ok I think we can all agree that medical issues should be decided between a patient and her doctor. There we go. Common ground.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - Like I said, at 22 weeks you have a minimal chance of survival. But, again, even medical professionals will usually not try to resuscitate a 22-week-old premie because it is nearly impossible for it to survive without crippling disabilities. Even so, this doesn't change the fact that, at 20 weeks, which is the gestational age the law cites, a fetus is not viable outside the womb.