Posted on 12/07/2019 1:04:34 AM PST by Morgana
After Representative Candice Keller introduced HB 413, a bill that defines an “unborn child” as a person “from fertilization until live birth” and which would ban nearly all abortions in the state of Ohio, abortion activists and mainstream media immediately attacked the bill with unfair distortions of the law’s treatment of ectopic pregnancies. A piece recently published by Time is a prime example.
FALSE CLAIM: Under the bill, a doctor would be required to try to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus or face prison time.
The article alleges physicians would be required to treat an ectopic pregnancy by attempting to reimplant the preborn baby in the womb, thus causing potentially serious harm to the woman, since current medical treatment has not yet found a way to safely and reliably do this. In an ectopic pregnancy, the baby is implanted outside the uterus, most often in the fallopian tube but sometimes in the mother’s abdomen. The condition is always fatal for the preborn baby if implanted in the fallopian tube, and almost always fatal if in the abdomen. It is also one of the leading causes of death for women in the first trimester.
The author states: “Under the bill, physicians who perform abortions would face 15 years to life in prison — unless the mother’s life is in danger, or if the physician ‘takes all possible steps’ to save the fetus’ life. The bill claims that one example of a procedure to protect the fetus would be ‘attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman’s uterus.’” She paints a grim picture: “In essence, the bill seems to suggest that doctors could avoid jail time by performing a procedure that does not exist.”
THE FACTS: This section of the bill actually states that while requiring physicians to take “all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn child, while preserving the life of the woman,” it clarifies that “[s]uch steps include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman’s uterus” (emphasis added).
The use of the phrase “if applicable” means that the law isn’t requiring physicians to conduct a procedure that is presently not possible; it simply leaves room for medical discretion if such a procedure ever becomes available and widespread in the future. The bill also does not assert that it is medically possible to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy.
Attacking a pro-life bill for something it does not require is misleading but unfortunately not surprising, given the pro-abortion media’s standard mode of operation. This kind of fallacious argument discredits abortion activists. Elsewhere in the article, the author even takes a jab at pro-life heartbeat laws with a false (and unsubstantiated) claim about preborn babies, namely that “scientists say that a fetus does not possess what most people would call a heart” early in development. On the contrary, the scientific consensus is clear that a preborn baby has a functioning heart by 22 days after conception, and possibly even sooner.
It should also be noted — since there always seems to be great confusion on this point — that treatment for ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion. The purpose of the treatment, as the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has pointed out, is what makes all the difference: “[T]he intent for the pro-life physician is not to kill the unborn child, but to preserve the life of the mother in a situation where the life of the child cannot be saved by current medical technology.” If the physician could save the life of the baby, he would and should be obligated to do so — but at this time, that technology does not exist.
Reasonable people can argue about the wisdom of including this provision, but we should not mischaracterize what the law is actually saying. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Time, The New York Times, the Associated Press, The Guardian, Salon, The Daily Beast, Newsweek, and more news outlets are doing. Though HB 413 is controversial, it is deceptive to engage in a campaign of fear-mongering to assert that somehow the bill is endangering women with a non-existent requirement.
Really the only hope for a baby this small is an advanced neo natal ICU one that we don't have yet.
This would be insane. Women die from ectopic pregnancies. It’s the most common cause of maternal deaths during the first trimester.
On the other hand, doctors doing an IVF procedure for a two-woman couple placed the embryo in one woman's uterus, then moved it to the other's, so that both women could "feel" they were the biological mother.
https://inews.co.uk/news/science/first-two-womb-baby-london-lesbian-pair-1331729
I am a doctor. There’s a difference between fertilizing an egg in a petri dish and implanting a blastocyst in a uterus, and taking an implanted embryo out of a Fallopian tube.
It’s nice that you’re a doctor, and yes, the situations are different.
I was using this item as an example of advances in medical technology and procedures of which the general public would never have thought only a few years ago. It raises the possibility of, someday, preserving both lives in an ectopic pregnancy.
Also, the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies today are treated chemically, without surgery. When I was training, ectopics were admitted for emergency surgery. Now, unless it’s a “ruptured ectopic”, ie the fallopian tube has burst and the woman is bleeding, she gets medication usually Methotraxate and gets sent home, with close followup.
Maybe a technique could be developed to extract an unruptured ectopic and move it to implant in the uterus, I don’t think anyone is working on that particular problem. I know many of the pregnant women I had as patients were devastated that they had to choose between their life and their childs. Except where the pregnancy was unsuspected, most of the women were planning on having a baby.
Yes, it’s a very difficult situation ... which goes back to why the Ohio bill even brought it up.
In the situation of an ectopic pregnancy, the “baby” is a group of cells.
That is not viable. Nor will it ever be.
Leaving it in place will kill both the mother and the embryo.
While I am pro life, this is a ridiculous request.
OHIO PING!
Please let me know if you want on or off the Ohio Ping list.
“THE FACTS: New Ohio bill would not force doctors to try to reimplant ectopic pregnancies
LIVE ACTION NEWS ^ | Dec, 6, 2019 | Laura Nicole | “
The Fallopian tubes are so small, they would likely rupture and would kill both mother and baby. The womb did not get ready as in a regular pregnancy. Another reason is if the child dies in the womb at 5 or 6 months, it would ROT and disintegrate and poison the mother. That is how it works even in the Animal world.
My mom was 5 months when for no known reason the baby died in the womb. It was a near all Catholic hospital area and they were going to force her to carry a NOT viable baby that would of killed her. She nearly died when she finally Miscarried a few weeks later. 2 units of blood were needed. I was barely a teen and found her in the bathroom bleeding out. Because of her age and 2 previous miscarriages it was deemed best no more babies, the pill was fairly new in the USA, and wasn’t free. Took her GYN a while to find a Methodist hospital to tie her tubes which to him was the more permanent solution.
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.