Forced to Carry a Dead Fetus: Medical Malpractice?

 

When I hear stories about doctors showing such poor decision-making skills, I have to wonder how they got through medical school. I am assuming, at the very least, that this story is true. And I also I wonder if these doctors are making political decisions about the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade or if they are genuinely confused. Either way, these situations should not be happening.

The most horrific story I read was of a woman who was forced to carry the remains of a miscarriage in her body for two weeks. Her doctor refused to remove the dead fetus, due to the changes of the law in Texas, even though the fetus showed no heartbeat on the ultrasound. You can read the entire story here.

The timid doctors who are supposedly afraid of breaking the law for removing a dead fetus appear to be unconcerned that the pregnant woman might die if the remains are not removed:

Dr. Lillian Schapiro, who has been an OB-GYN in Atlanta for more than 30 years, said carrying around a dead fetus is also dangerous to the mother.

‘She can develop an infection that can make her sterile and never able to have children again,’ she said.

Or even worse. ‘When the baby dies inside, the baby starts to release parts of its tissue that can get into the mother’s blood supply. It can cause organ failure. It can cause death,’ Schapiro said.

And let’s not forget that the threat of lawsuits (which is often present in the medical field) hangs over everyone’s head.

So what should be done in light of these confused doctors?

John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, said he considers any obstacle facing abortion patients to be a ‘very serious situation.’ He attributed such problems to a ‘malfunction in the communication of the law, not the law itself.’ adding ‘I have seen reports of doctors being confused, but it is a failure of our medical associations to provide clear guidance.’

Were there no guidelines for dealing with miscarriage up to this point? There have been guidelines that could have been followed until these doctors could clear up their confusion:

Sarah Prager, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, said in a typical early miscarriage, when cardiac activity has stopped, patients should be offered three options for tissue removal.

D&Cs are recommended when patients are bleeding heavily, have anemia, have problems with blood clotting or have certain conditions that make them medically fragile, Dr. Prager said. Some other patients also choose to have a D&C, finding them emotionally easier than a lengthy procedure at home.

Another option is medication – usually mifepristone, which weakens the membrane lining the uterus and softens the cervix, followed by misoprostol, which causes contractions. These pills are used for abortion medicine.

The third option is “anticipatory management”: waiting for the tissue to pass on its own, which can take weeks. It is unsuccessful for 20 percent of patients, who then require surgery or medication, said Dr. Prager, co-author of Abortion Management, Guidelines for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

When possible, patients should be allowed to choose the method because the lack of choice adds to the trauma of losing the desired pregnancy, doctors and patients said.

If a woman has experienced a miscarriage, the medications listed obviously would be used to remove the miscarriage remains, not to abort a living fetus.

Frankly, I think most of the protests listed here are political, not practical. We have no way of knowing which of the doctors described are pro-abortion or pro-life, but we are talking about miscarriages. And for those doctors who are concerned about not risking the life of the mother, don’t you think they might transcend their political beliefs and take ethical, practical, and life-saving action?

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 82 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I do feel compelled to add a personal note. To those of you who question the veracity of the story, I don’t blame you a bit. Based on the behavior of the media and the medical profession, we have every reason to believe the story is at least questionable if not completely made up. I realize that in response to some of your comments, I might have sounded a little defensive, and I’m sorry for that; I don’t think your skepticism was directed at me personally.

    At the same time, I think it’s helpful to consider that confirmation bias against these stories could also be at play. That’s hard to do given the level of deception and misinformation we’ve had to tolerate. But I think all of us can try to do our best to look at stories according to our best judgment, and I will trust in that possibility.

    Great response.

    Debbie Reynolds carried not one but two dead fetuses to the full nine months.

    When extremists on either side of the issue take control, society’s most vulnerable members suffer the cost. As well as babies in the womb, I include pregnant women whose pregnancies are ended to be among the most vulnerable.

    When the pro-life crowd lets religious fanatics take over the state legislatures, such that women in Reynold’s situation and women who are miscarrying can suffer needlessly due to a strict definition of abortion, just exactly what is being gained other than the talking points for the abortion rights side of things?

    • #61
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    When the pro-life crowd lets religious fanatics take over the state legislatures, such that women in Reynold’s situation and women who are miscarrying can suffer needlessly due to a strict definition of abortion, just exactly what is being gained other than the talking points for the abortion rights side of things?

    CarolJoy, do you think this is happening? That religious fanatics in govt. are taking charge and causing women to suffer? I tend to see the situation differently. Yes, some of the guidelines at the state level are strict, but they are related specifically to abortion, and I believe that some people who are against changing the law regarding abortion are trying to confuse the issues to the detriment of those who miscarry or have other issues during pregnancy.

    Eventually I hope that states will figure out what is in the best interests of mother and baby, so that people like you do not have to suffer so terribly. How do we find that path that includes justice and compassion? Thanks for weighing in.

    • #62
  3. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I do feel compelled to add a personal note. To those of you who question the veracity of the story, I don’t blame you a bit. Based on the behavior of the media and the medical profession, we have every reason to believe the story is at least questionable if not completely made up. I realize that in response to some of your comments, I might have sounded a little defensive, and I’m sorry for that; I don’t think your skepticism was directed at me personally.

    At the same time, I think it’s helpful to consider that confirmation bias against these stories could also be at play. That’s hard to do given the level of deception and misinformation we’ve had to tolerate. But I think all of us can try to do our best to look at stories according to our best judgment, and I will trust in that possibility.

    Great response.

    Debbie Reynolds carried not one but two dead fetuses to the full nine months.

    When extremists on either side of the issue take control, society’s most vulnerable members suffer the cost. As well as babies in the womb, I include pregnant women whose pregnancies are ended to be among the most vulnerable.

    When the pro-life crowd lets religious fanatics take over the state legislatures, such that women in Reynold’s situation and women who are miscarrying can suffer needlessly due to a strict definition of abortion, just exactly what is being gained other than the talking points for the abortion rights side of things?

    Hard barriers against weaselly lawyers who like to find ways to make things legal regardless. Consider the ‘mental health’ exception to abortion that was a loophole big enough to drive a mobile reproductive clinic through. 

    But that means that people who truly need an abortion have to fight for it, through our sclerotic court systems. 

    I agree with you that the law should be more lenient and forgiving, but it remains true that if you give ’em an inch, they’ll take a chile. 

    • #63
  4. I Shot The Serif Member
    I Shot The Serif
    @IShotTheSerif

    I’ve also heard that one of the reasons the U.S.’s C section rate is unreasonably high is that doctors/hospitals don’t want to get sued, and if they just handle problems or shadows of problems with C sections then they won’t be sued.

    Is this a similar phenomenon? Maybe something is wrong with the system, with incentives and disincentives?

    Here’s what I was told on another forum, when I protested that doctors should surely be more afraid of the consequences of their patient dying than the consequences of getting in trouble over abortion.

    It’s the way the laws are drafted.

    If doctors will be sued or arrested and have to defend themselves in court for performing an abortion, they will be far more cautious and in cases that are more gray, they may err on the side of not doing the abortion even if it increases the risks to the mother.

    It also means that doctors who are uncomfortable practicing under those restrictions will be more likely to leave the state. Meaning fewer doctors. Which is what voters in those states want I guess.

    • #64
  5. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    When the pro-life crowd lets religious fanatics take over the state legislatures, such that women in Reynold’s situation and women who are miscarrying can suffer needlessly due to a strict definition of abortion, just exactly what is being gained other than the talking points for the abortion rights side of things?

    CarolJoy, do you think this is happening? That religious fanatics in govt. are taking charge and causing women to suffer? I tend to see the situation differently. Yes, some of the guidelines at the state level are strict, but they are related specifically to abortion, and I believe that some people who are against changing the law regarding abortion are trying to confuse the issues to the detriment of those who miscarry or have other issues during pregnancy.

    Eventually I hope that states will figure out what is in the best interests of mother and baby, so that people like you do not have to suffer so terribly. How do we find that path that includes justice and compassion? Thanks for weighing in.

    All I can say is that I know it did happen prior to Roe vs Wade.

    So if it is true, as so many commentators have stated, that the recent SCOTUS decision returns us to the precise situation of where the nation was in the early 1970’s, then I do have concerns.

    As far as the states being concerned about the interests of the mothers and the babies, we are now witnessing states like Calif, Oregon, Washington, Illinois and New York considering mandatory COV vaccines for kids – including 6 month old babies. Even as stats pour in about babies with health problems that possibly resulted from their moms receiving  the COV vaccine during the pregnancy.

    Why? Politicians like money – and they get funding for this ludicrous position of deciding to enact COV bio weapon  mandates for little kids.

    Politicians also like votes… They wanna get elected. Whether or not they believe what they are espousing, if they are told by their handlers that the way to have the Religious Right vote for them in places like Oklahoma, then that in all likelihood means they will then  support and encourage the same legal acts that prevented me from having decent medical help in 1972. (And I was living in the rather liberal state of Illinois.)

     

    • #65
  6. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    When the pro-life crowd lets religious fanatics take over the state legislatures, such that women in Reynold’s situation and women who are miscarrying can suffer needlessly due to a strict definition of abortion, just exactly what is being gained other than the talking points for the abortion rights side of things?

    CarolJoy, do you think this is happening? That religious fanatics in govt. are taking charge and causing women to suffer? I tend to see the situation differently. Yes, some of the guidelines at the state level are strict, but they are related specifically to abortion, and I believe that some people who are against changing the law regarding abortion are trying to confuse the issues to the detriment of those who miscarry or have other issues during pregnancy.

    Eventually I hope that states will figure out what is in the best interests of mother and baby, so that people like you do not have to suffer so terribly. How do we find that path that includes justice and compassion? Thanks for weighing in.

    All I can say is that I know it did happen prior to Roe vs Wade.

    So if it is true, as so many commentators have stated, that the recent SCOTUS decision returns us to the precise situation of where the nation was in the early 1970’s, then I do have concerns.

    As far as the states being concerned about the interests of the mothers and the babies, we are now witnessing states like Calif, Oregon, Washington, Illinois and New York considering mandatory COV vaccines for kids – including 6 month old babies. Even as stats pour in about babies with health problems that possibly resulted from their moms receiving the COV vaccine during the pregnancy.

    Why? Politicians like money – and they get funding for this ludicrous position of deciding to enact COV bio weapon mandates for little kids.

    Politicians also like votes… They wanna get elected. Whether or not they believe what they are espousing, if they are told by their handlers that the way to have the Religious Right vote for them in places like Oklahoma, then that in all likelihood means they will then support and encourage the same legal acts that prevented me from having decent medical help in 1972. (And I was living in the rather liberal state of Illinois.)

    There is, sadly, a Karen in everyone, and if a politician can find her issue, they can command her vote. 

    • #66
  7. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    TBA (View Comment):
    There is, sadly, a Karen in everyone, and if a politician can find her issue, they can command her vote. 

    Truth-bomb of the week.

    • #67
  8. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    TBA (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I do feel compelled to add a personal note. To those of you who question the veracity of the story, I don’t blame you a bit. Based on the behavior of the media and the medical profession, we have every reason to believe the story is at least questionable if not completely made up. I realize that in response to some of your comments, I might have sounded a little defensive, and I’m sorry for that; I don’t think your skepticism was directed at me personally.

    At the same time, I think it’s helpful to consider that confirmation bias against these stories could also be at play. That’s hard to do given the level of deception and misinformation we’ve had to tolerate. But I think all of us can try to do our best to look at stories according to our best judgment, and I will trust in that possibility.

    Great response.

    Debbie Reynolds carried not one but two dead fetuses to the full nine months.

    When extremists on either side of the issue take control, society’s most vulnerable members suffer the cost. As well as babies in the womb, I include pregnant women whose pregnancies are ended to be among the most vulnerable.

    When the pro-life crowd lets religious fanatics take over the state legislatures, such that women in Reynold’s situation and women who are miscarrying can suffer needlessly due to a strict definition of abortion, just exactly what is being gained other than the talking points for the abortion rights side of things?

    Hard barriers against weaselly lawyers who like to find ways to make things legal regardless. Consider the ‘mental health’ exception to abortion that was a loophole big enough to drive a mobile reproductive clinic through.

    But that means that people who truly need an abortion have to fight for it, through our sclerotic court systems.

    I agree with you that the law should be more lenient and forgiving, but it remains true that if you give ’em an inch, they’ll take a chile.

    Yes, I personally wouldn’t be so hard on the “religious right”. In fact, if you call them ‘extreme’ in following their Lord, they will take that as a compliment. No, I think the extremes, on both sides, were once again initiated by the ghouls in the democrat party and the actions that they enabled.

    • #68
  9. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    I am amazed that people follow this person or value its opinion.

     

     

    • #69
  10. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I am amazed that people follow this person or value its opinion.

    “Well, first off, you’ve gone through menopause, hon.” 

     

    • #70
  11. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I am amazed that people follow this person or value its opinion.

    I’m amazed that people are apparently this STUPID.

    • #71
  12. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    I seriously doubt that any doctor acting in good faith would refuse to perform a D&C on a woman with a naturally terminated first trimester pregnancy. After the first trimester, it might get a little dicier, I don’t know. But if a baby dies in the third trimester, I’m pretty sure that’s counted as a stillbirth and the unfortunate mother has to go through labor just as she would to deliver a living baby. And none of these situations count as an “abortion,” the whole point of which is to kill a living pre-born human.

    This is the Left using “women are going to die!!!” hysterical fearmongering to intimidate lawmakers. Pregnancy carries some risk, but women die from abortions, too. See cases treated by abortion provider Gosnell, Kermit, et al.

    • #72
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    I seriously doubt that any doctor acting in good faith would refuse to perform a D&C on a woman with a naturally terminated first trimester pregnancy. After the first trimester, it might get a little dicier, I don’t know. But if a baby dies in the third trimester, I’m pretty sure that’s counted as a stillbirth and the unfortunate mother has to go through labor just as she would to deliver a living baby. And none of these situations count as an “abortion,” the whole point of which is to kill a living pre-born human.

    This is the Left using “women are going to die!!!” hysterical fearmongering to intimidate lawmakers. Pregnancy carries some risk, but women die from abortions, too. See cases treated abortion provider Gosnell, Kermit, et al.

    I agree with all your points, WC. It’s the Left trying to play games. And we have to keep making sure the rules are clear.

    • #73
  14. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I am amazed that people follow this person or value its opinion.

    I’m amazed that people are apparently this STUPID.

    Cher makes blondes look brilliant.

    • #74
  15. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    I seriously doubt that any doctor acting in good faith would refuse to perform a D&C on a woman with a naturally terminated first trimester pregnancy. After the first trimester, it might get a little dicier, I don’t know. But if a baby dies in the third trimester, I’m pretty sure that’s counted as a stillbirth and the unfortunate mother has to go through labor just as she would to deliver a living baby. And none of these situations count as an “abortion,” the whole point of which is to kill a living pre-born human.

    This is the Left using “women are going to die!!!” hysterical fearmongering to intimidate lawmakers. Pregnancy carries some risk, but women die from abortions, too. See cases treated by abortion provider Gosnell, Kermit, et al.

    Well I was the woman denied the D & C even though it was needed. Granted the second hospital visit brought about the needed result, but What The Hell was that first visit about? (My Comment # 48 for background.)

    Plus do doctors act in good faith? Some do, but over the years a majority of  doctors have accepted, for the sake of keeping their jobs, eight to ten minute appointments with 90% of the patients, and  a resulting lack of interest in those patients. After all,  how interested can a physician  be if the Primary Directive is about  the timer ticking away? Then  because of those predominating factors, medical mistakes galore. (With medical mistakes made in the USA and pharmaceutical errors causing a majority of the deaths of people in this country right now.)

    Technically as you are stating,  the problematic occurrences that can arise inside pregnancies are not labeled “abortions.” That is so, unless the law lays out a hard line that it is best for ER doctors to seriously question any woman’s situations that raise a red flag – then in that case throw the woman  out of the hospital on their ear.

    Besides this, there is a need on my part to say that women who miscarry are not some abstract item, like far off monks in caves who spend their lives throat singing. These are women who can be anyone’s daughter, or sister, or friend and even the mother, as these days some  women wrap up their career to go and have another  baby at age 50.

    • #75
  16. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan, I am confused about the story.

    The quote from Dr. Prager indicates that allowing nature to take its course is one of the treatments for miscarriage. The Mayo Clinic webpage (here) states the same thing, except that it reverses the order of the options, with the “do nothing” option (called “expectant management”) listed first, followed by the pharmaceutical option to induce labor (called “medical treatment”) listed second, and the surgical option listed third.

    I did follow the link to the story. The story says that the alleged victim had to get a “second invasive ultrasound.”

    Read that again. An “invasive ultrasound.” Ultrasounds are non-invasive.

    So this leads me to believe that this article is a pack of lies cobbled together to support a pro-abortion narrative.

    I’m not a doctor. I’m just reading the quote from Dr. Prager in Susan’s post, and then looking at what the Mayo Clinic says.

    From the article, it looks like the first doctor essentially wanted a second opinion on the ultrasound. That doesn’t seem crazy to me, especially as the report from both Dr. Prager and the Mayo Clinic indicate that a “do nothing” approach is acceptable, absent some indication of infection. The story mentions no such indication of infection.

    Not all ultrasounds are non-invasive. Some are… intra-vaginal and can be done if there is suspected placental interference in trying to find a heartbeat.

    • #76
  17. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Technically as you are stating,  the problematic occurrences that can arise inside pregnancies are not labeled “abortions.” That is so, unless the law lays out a hard line that it is best for ER doctors to seriously question any woman’s situations that raise a red flag – then in that case throw the woman  out of the hospital on their ear.

    Besides this, there is a need on my part to say that women who miscarry are not some abstract item, like far off monks in caves who spend their lives throat singing. These are women who can be anyone’s daughter, or sister, or friend and even the mother, as these days some  women wrap up their career to go and have another  baby at age 50.

    I had three first-trimester miscarriages post-Roe and three D&Cs with no questions asked about a possible self-induced abortion, so I don’t need to be lectured about abstractions. I was in pain and bleeding and they took me into surgery and took care of me. I think your experience is a terrible outlier and I have no idea why any doctor would assume the worst and refuse to treat. That’s just bonkers in addition to malpractice. You would have had a good case for a lawsuit I would think.

    And my miscarriages were labeled “spontaneous abortion.” That was upsetting. It’s not the label that matters though, it’s the intent. An “abortion” has come to mean the intentional termination of the life of an unwanted baby. “My body, my choice” completely negates the presence of another human body, however so small and frail.

    • #77
  18. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Technically as you are stating, the problematic occurrences that can arise inside pregnancies are not labeled “abortions.” That is so, unless the law lays out a hard line that it is best for ER doctors to seriously question any woman’s situations that raise a red flag – then in that case throw the woman out of the hospital on their ear.

    Besides this, there is a need on my part to say that women who miscarry are not some abstract item, like far off monks in caves who spend their lives throat singing. These are women who can be anyone’s daughter, or sister, or friend and even the mother, as these days some women wrap up their career to go and have another baby at age 50.

    I had three first-trimester miscarriages post-Roe and three D&Cs with no questions asked about a possible self-induced abortion, so I don’t need to be lectured about abstractions. I was in pain and bleeding and they took me into surgery and took care of me. I think your experience is a terrible outlier and I have no idea why any doctor would assume the worst and refuse to treat. That’s just bonkers in addition to malpractice. You would have had a good case for a lawsuit I would think.

    And my miscarriages were labeled “spontaneous abortion.” That was upsetting. It’s not the label that matters though, it’s the intent. An “abortion” has come to mean the intentional termination of the life of an unwanted baby. “My body, my choice” completely negates the presence of another human body, however so small and frail.

    The labeling can be confusing and disturbing.  When I started in medicine 40+ years ago “abortion,” which simply means bringing (whatever) to a premature end,  was described two or three different ways: spontaneous AB was miscarriage; therapeutic or elective was for the other kind.  The two latter terms may have been used for the necessary kind–life of the mother, etc–vs. completely elective (“choice,” aka no good reason), but for the most part they seemed to be used interchangeably.  More recently, I’ve occasionally seen just “abortion” used for all cases, but I hope it isn’t a trend.  When my miscarriage was so described, I objected strongly and demanded a correction.  Last I looked at the record, it had been changed to “spontaneous abortion.”  Sad that the original technical term has been overshadowed by the politics and perfectly innocent women who wanted their babies and lost them are further tormented by medical records suggesting they had done something vile.

    • #78
  19. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Caryn (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Technically as you are stating, the problematic occurrences that can arise inside pregnancies are not labeled “abortions.” That is so, unless the law lays out a hard line that it is best for ER doctors to seriously question any woman’s situations that raise a red flag – then in that case throw the woman out of the hospital on their ear.

    Besides this, there is a need on my part to say that women who miscarry are not some abstract item, like far off monks in caves who spend their lives throat singing. These are women who can be anyone’s daughter, or sister, or friend and even the mother, as these days some women wrap up their career to go and have another baby at age 50.

    I had three first-trimester miscarriages post-Roe and three D&Cs with no questions asked about a possible self-induced abortion, so I don’t need to be lectured about abstractions. I was in pain and bleeding and they took me into surgery and took care of me. I think your experience is a terrible outlier and I have no idea why any doctor would assume the worst and refuse to treat. That’s just bonkers in addition to malpractice. You would have had a good case for a lawsuit I would think.

    And my miscarriages were labeled “spontaneous abortion.” That was upsetting. It’s not the label that matters though, it’s the intent. An “abortion” has come to mean the intentional termination of the life of an unwanted baby. “My body, my choice” completely negates the presence of another human body, however so small and frail.

    The labeling can be confusing and disturbing. When I started in medicine 40+ years ago “abortion,” which simply means bringing (whatever) to a premature end, was described two or three different ways: spontaneous AB was miscarriage; therapeutic or elective was for the other kind. The two latter terms may have been used for the necessary kind–life of the mother, etc–vs. completely elective (“choice,” aka no good reason), but for the most part they seemed to be used interchangeably. More recently, I’ve occasionally seen just “abortion” used for all cases, but I hope it isn’t a trend. When my miscarriage was so described, I objected strongly and demanded a correction. Last I looked at the record, it had been changed to “spontaneous abortion.” Sad that the original technical term has been overshadowed by the politics and perfectly innocent women who wanted their babies and lost them are further tormented by medical records suggesting they had done something vile.

    As with COVID, if all cases get labelled a particular variety, then the numbers go a certain way.

    • #79
  20. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Technically as you are stating, the problematic occurrences that can arise inside pregnancies are not labeled “abortions.” That is so, unless the law lays out a hard line that it is best for ER doctors to seriously question any woman’s situations that raise a red flag – then in that case throw the woman out of the hospital on their ear.

    Besides this, there is a need on my part to say that women who miscarry are not some abstract item, like far off monks in caves who spend their lives throat singing. These are women who can be anyone’s daughter, or sister, or friend and even the mother, as these days some women wrap up their career to go and have another baby at age 50.

    I had three first-trimester miscarriages post-Roe and three D&Cs with no questions asked about a possible self-induced abortion, so I don’t need to be lectured about abstractions. I was in pain and bleeding and they took me into surgery and took care of me. I think your experience is a terrible outlier and I have no idea why any doctor would assume the worst and refuse to treat. That’s just bonkers in addition to malpractice. You would have had a good case for a lawsuit I would think.

    And my miscarriages were labeled “spontaneous abortion.” That was upsetting. It’s not the label that matters though, it’s the intent. An “abortion” has come to mean the intentional termination of the life of an unwanted baby. “My body, my choice” completely negates the presence of another human body, however so small and frail.

    My situation was pre-Roe. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

    Pre-Roe is now the legal quagmire to which we have returned.

    On edit: I agree with you that the label of abortion for  a pregnancy that was involuntarily terminated is upsetting.

     

    • #80
  21. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Technically as you are stating, the problematic occurrences that can arise inside pregnancies are not labeled “abortions.” That is so, unless the law lays out a hard line that it is best for ER doctors to seriously question any woman’s situations that raise a red flag – then in that case throw the woman out of the hospital on their ear.

    Besides this, there is a need on my part to say that women who miscarry are not some abstract item, like far off monks in caves who spend their lives throat singing. These are women who can be anyone’s daughter, or sister, or friend and even the mother, as these days some women wrap up their career to go and have another baby at age 50.

    I had three first-trimester miscarriages post-Roe and three D&Cs with no questions asked about a possible self-induced abortion, so I don’t need to be lectured about abstractions. I was in pain and bleeding and they took me into surgery and took care of me. I think your experience is a terrible outlier and I have no idea why any doctor would assume the worst and refuse to treat. That’s just bonkers in addition to malpractice. You would have had a good case for a lawsuit I would think.

    And my miscarriages were labeled “spontaneous abortion.” That was upsetting. It’s not the label that matters though, it’s the intent. An “abortion” has come to mean the intentional termination of the life of an unwanted baby. “My body, my choice” completely negates the presence of another human body, however so small and frail.

    My situation was pre-Roe. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

    Pre-Roe is now the legal quagmire to which we have returned.

    On edit: I agree with you that the label of abortion for a pregnancy that was involuntarily terminated is upsetting.

    In some states. But technology is much more sophisticated now, and any doctor that refuses to perform a D&C on a first trimester miscarriage should be sued for malpractice, however restrictive the state’s abortion laws. This is NOT an abortion if the baby is already deceased.

    • #81
  22. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    If anyone is interested, I still couldn’t find any article that said the “miscarriage” was a fraud or contrived. I know that was certainly possible, that her story was propaganda, but I found no new data. But the feedback from everyone has certainly fine-tuned my antennas!

    • #82
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.