"Speaking for those women who could never imagine they'd have to make this choice"

[kpete]

Statement of Christy Zink on Harmful Impact of HR 3803

My name is Christy Zink. I, like many women in the Washington, DC area, am a mother. Almost every day, I rush around to get two kids woken up, dressed, and out the door. Between my five-year-old daughter and eleven-month-old son there are backpacks, diaper bags, milk bottles, juice boxes, lunch boxes, permission slips, and stuffed bunnies. There are also the mysterious hunt for two matching shoes and the eternal battle to actually get those shoes on two matching feet.

I, like so many women, work diligently to balance family and work and I feel lucky to have this challenge.

In addition to my two children, I was also pregnant in 2009. I would often wonder about whose eyes the baby might have and who my child might grow up to be. I was looking forward to the ultrasound when we would get a chance to have a look at the baby in utero. I certainly hadn't anticipated that my husband and I would have to make the most difficult decision of our lives.

I took extra special care of myself during this pregnancy. I received excellent prenatal attention. Previous testing had shown a baby growing on target, with the limbs and organs all in working order. However, when I was 21 weeks pregnant, an MRI revealed that our baby was missing the central connecting structure of the two parts of his brain. A specialist diagnosed the baby with agenesis of the corpus callosum. What allows the brain to function as a whole was simply absent. But that wasn't all. Part of the baby's brain had failed to develop. Where the typical human brain presents a lovely, rounded symmetry, our baby had small, globular splotches. In effect, our baby was also missing one side of his brain.

We are fortunate to live in Washington, DC, because we were able to consult some of the best radiologists, neurologists, and geneticists not just in our city or in the country, but in the world. We asked every question we could. The answers were far from easy to hear, but they were clear. There would be no miracle cure. His body had no capacity to repair this anomaly, and medical science could not solve this tragedy.

Our baby's condition could not have been detected earlier in my pregnancy. Only the brain scan could have found it. The prognosis was unbearable. No one could look at those MRI images and not know, instantly, that something was terribly wrong. If the baby survived the pregnancy, which was not certain, his condition would require surgeries to remove more of what little brain matter he had in order to diminish what would otherwise be a state of near-constant seizures.

I am here today to speak out against the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It's very premise-that it prevents pain-is a lie. If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain. If he had survived the pregnancy-which was not certain-he might have never left the hospital. My daughter's life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always-absent parent.

The decision I made to have an abortion at almost 22 weeks was made out of love and to spare my son's pain and suffering.

I am horrified to think that the doctors who compassionately but objectively explained to us the prognosis and our options for medical treatment, and the doctor who helped us terminate the pregnancy, would be prosecuted as criminals under this law for providing basic medical care and expertise.

I live and work in Washington, DC. My husband and I own a house here, we vote, and we believe in the democracy at the heart of this country. It is unconscionable that someone would come into my city from the outside and try to impose a law that doesn't represent the best interests of anyone, especially families like mine. This proposed law is downright cruel, as it would inflict pain on the families, the women, and the babies it purports to protect.

It's in honor of my son that I'm here today, speaking on his behalf. I am also fighting for women like me, to have the right to access abortion care when we need to beyond 20 weeks-especially for those women who could never imagine they'd have to make this choice. I urge you not to pass this harmful legislation.

http://prochoice.org/news/releases/20120517.html

[cali]

1. I'm so sick of this type of story. It works toward invalidating women who choose simply

not to bear a child, because they don't want to.

[kestrel91316]

2. I would hope that women who simply don't want a child

would make their decision long before 22 weeks.

I never wanted children. If my birth control had failed and I had become pregnant, I would have had an abortion pretty much as immediately as the law allowed.

[southernyankeebelle]

9. That wasn't the impression I got from what she was say. Unless a person walks in that

person's shoes we have no right to judge them. If my child has been that bad off I don't know if I would want a child with constant seizsures. I have seen what seizures do to a person and it drains a person and especially when you can't find out why it keeps happening. God bless the lady for having to make the decision that was right for her and her family.

[kestrel91316]

11. I have no problem with what the woman in the story decided to do.

I disagree with cali's comment that it invalidates women who opt for abortion because they don't want a child. She'd like us to think that women who don't want a child wait until 22 weeks to figure that out. Typical RW talking point, but that's par for the course.

[southernyankeebelle]

12. Oh I was talking in general it wasn't meant as personal. I didn't think you meant it to

hurt anyone. I was just talking in general. The whole thing is a sad situation isn't it.

[4th law of robotics]

3. I didn't get that impression at all

I think the point was that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to abort later in the pregnancy other than the stereotype of realizing it was preventing you from getting in to clubs or whatever.

Most abortions aren't done at 5.5 months in.

[ehrnst]

4. Actually, the post 20 week abortions are ovewhelmingly wanted pregnancies

The law that she is talking about is a ban on post 20 week abortions, except where the woman will die if she carries to term.

So yes, her story is actually more representative of reality than invalidating what is a fantasy on the part of the antis - a woman who found out that she was pregnant at 8 weeks, then decides suddenly at 22 weeks that she doesn't want to carry a healthy pregnancy to term.

The vast majority of healthy pregnancies that are terminated are terminated within weeks of a woman finding out that she's pregnant. Unless a woman finds out she's pregnant at 14 weeks, or is delayed for months and months because of financial or legal reasons, a woman choosing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy isn't going to be affected by this law.

[AllyCat]

5. No, it doesn't. It does not invalidate women who choose not to bear a child.

It shows that the law they are trying to pass based on this premise is a lie.

[abelenkpe]

7. Huh?

It simply points out that those seeking late term abortions are doing so for serious medical conditions and an important reason why this procedure needs to remain legal and available.

[patrice]

8. Which means that, whatever the circumstances are that could put a woman in that

position, we need to work much much harder at being sure that ALL women, in WHATEVER oppressive circumstances, know that they have all options at all times previous to a collectively agreed upon point at which collective involvements in a healthy viable person in utero develop, because IF the issue is CHOICE, then the person with the most choices bears the majority of the responsibility for what happens TO OTHERS, especially others with limited choices and s/he can always CHOOSE to go against collective-self determinations anyway if she's willing to bear the consequences.

There's something in this question that is kind of like the 1% demanding that they be able to do whatever they want with collectively developed resources.

And before someone starts screaming at me about coat-hangars, recall that I'm talking about a different environment here in which a woman's reproductive biology is recognized and supported appropriately to the max with ALL options to the max from puberty to death.

[lapislzi]

10. Disagree.

It underscores the fact that some abortions are done out of medical necessity and compassion.

Some are not, but you'll have a harder time changing minds with those stories.

For the record, I support abortion up to term, for any reason, no questions asked. It's also none of my damn business...I am past childbearing age.

I also believe that abortion is often the best option for all concerned. People get upset when I call myself "pro abortion" (see above, about changing minds). I had an abortion. I'm so glad I did.

And, as posters downthread have noted, later term abortions tend to have been wanted pregnancies gone horribly wrong. I still think that's the case, even though it's none of my business.

If you don't like the stories, don't read them.

[AllyCat]

6. I've taken care of babies just with the agenesis of corpus colossum

The seizures are horrible and often life-threatening. The demands on the family are intense. Women and their families should have the option to terminate.