Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
She had an abortion at 31 weeks. Why did California turn her away?
Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2022, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article262095082.htmlMegan Fidell went into her third trimester convinced she was pregnant with a healthy baby. One morning in her 31st week, she woke up excited to go to the doctor and see her baby on an ultrasound; by 11 a.m., she and her partner, David Lemon, were pacing through the park in tears, resolved to terminate the pregnancy.
Severe hydrocephalus, Fidell’s doctor had told the couple that spring day in 2012. Pointing to the black-and-white ultrasound images, the obstetrician showed them where the baby’s brain should be. There was a huge dark space. The doctor explained the baby’s head was so large that Fidell would need a risky C-section. She said that the baby’s ventricles were full of fluid; Fidell saw that the brain was a film on the edge of the skull. There was no cure. The baby might never speak words. He would have to endure surgery before he turned 1, if he even lived that long.
This sudden grief was dizzying. Fidell and Lemon were both 39 when they met on a dating site, and they badly wanted children; she was pregnant just a few weeks after they met. It seemed like a blessing. The previous scans and tests had all looked normal. Until that morning, all they’d known was joy.
(snip)
And then they realized that, in the worst moment of their lives, they would have to immediately come up with $8,000 and leave California to receive the medical care they needed in, of all places, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Golden State — whose leaders pride themselves on progressive policies — has outlawed the kind of health care that Fidell and Lemon wanted.
Severe hydrocephalus, Fidell’s doctor had told the couple that spring day in 2012. Pointing to the black-and-white ultrasound images, the obstetrician showed them where the baby’s brain should be. There was a huge dark space. The doctor explained the baby’s head was so large that Fidell would need a risky C-section. She said that the baby’s ventricles were full of fluid; Fidell saw that the brain was a film on the edge of the skull. There was no cure. The baby might never speak words. He would have to endure surgery before he turned 1, if he even lived that long.
This sudden grief was dizzying. Fidell and Lemon were both 39 when they met on a dating site, and they badly wanted children; she was pregnant just a few weeks after they met. It seemed like a blessing. The previous scans and tests had all looked normal. Until that morning, all they’d known was joy.
(snip)
And then they realized that, in the worst moment of their lives, they would have to immediately come up with $8,000 and leave California to receive the medical care they needed in, of all places, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Golden State — whose leaders pride themselves on progressive policies — has outlawed the kind of health care that Fidell and Lemon wanted.
Even so-called "abortion havens" might have restrictions that hinder people who need options the most. This is one example. We can't be complacent.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
