Skip to comments.Know the truth: The top 3 things you should know about Savita
Posted on 12/03/2012 9:10:38 AM PST by Morgana
Savita Halappanavar was 17 weeks pregnant while in Ireland with her husband. After being hospitalized at the University Hospital Galway, doctors determined that she was miscarrying her child and had a serious blood disorder called septicemia. As most people have heard by now, her story tragically ended on October 28.
When Savita died, the world was unprepared for what was about to unfold. Her story spread like wildfire. But what spread so quickly was a twisted version of her story. Here are the top three things you should know about what happened.
1. Abortion would not have saved Savitas life.
The liberal media reported that when Savita went to the hospital, she was refused an abortion. While we do not know Savitas words, a quick look at the disorder she had reveals that having an abortion would not have improved her chance of living. Septicemia is a serious, life-threatening infection that gets worse very quickly and abortion is not a treatment for it. A quick look here and here reveals that abortion is never a recommended to alleviate suffering from this disorder.
As was reported in the Hindu Times:
Severe septicaemia with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), a life-threatening bleeding disorder which is a complication of sepsis, major organ damage and loss of the mothers blood due to severe infection, is the cause of death in Savitas case. This is what seems to have happened and this is a sequence which cannot be reversed just by terminating the pregnancy.
The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health (written by the Committee on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare) stated in September 2012 that:
As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion the purposeful destruction of the unborn child is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.
2. Savitas death had nothing to do with the fact that Ireland is a largely Catholic country.
Many news reports stated that Savita was refused an abortion because Ireland is a largely Catholic country. Her husband even told the Irish Times that Savita had been refused an abortion on the grounds that it was a Catholic country. What was largely ignored in the reports was that even though the laws of Ireland uphold Catholic teaching that life is to be protected from conception until natural death, Ireland is one of the safest places for mothers to have their children. Its plain to see this, since the maternal mortality rate is 33 times higher in India, 2 times higher in the U.K., and 3.5 times higher in the United States.
Ireland has some of the best laws for maternal health. Their medical guidelines clearly state that:
In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.
Could Savita have died because she was refused an abortion? Nope. Why? Because in Ireland, they will do everything possible to save the life of the mother even if that includes a termination of pregnancy. Since an abortion was not performed on Savita, this must not have been in her best interest. It makes sense, since abortion is not a treatment for septicemia. Emerging reports are showing that Savita was most likely infected with an ESBL E. coli strain a horrible infection that is resistant to most antibiotic treatments. No matter what happened, we can be sure that all precautions were taken to preserve her life.
3. Abortion supporters are using this story as a ploy to change pro-life laws as they spark protests around the world.
Abortion supporters were tipped off three days prior to the breaking of this story and were thus given time to plan a huge social media campaign. They are using this story to show that Irelands pro-life laws need to be changed. Why? Because they claim that Savita died because of them. I already outlined for you how that is not true, so lets take a look at how this story is being used.
Here we see protesters shaming the Irish government for allegedly not protecting women.
Here people are demanding a change in Irish legislation to allow abortion (and to prevent women from dying in the future). But since we all know that abortion never saves the life of the mother, all this campaigning is for naught.
NEVER AGAIN - Legislate now!
Instead of spreading this lie that Savita died from a refused abortion, lets work together to spread the truth. Savita did not die from a refused abortion. She tragically died from an infection and does not deserve to be used as a political ploy. Her story deserves to be told in its entire truth. Women deserve better than abortion.
Septicemia is blood poisoning. Unless the fetus was the source of the infection, an abortion would not help.
I figured that by the article. Basically both mother and baby were doomed.
We had a friend who died of blood poisoning from an infection in his foot. Looking back, we figure that it might have been MRSA. Septicemia can be caused by anything, including MRSA.
Remember that rash of “toxic shock” that women were getting from tampons? That was also “septicemia”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.