Banning surgical abortions: State-induced medical malpractice

[usregimechange]

Refer and save the below graphic (for nonprofit educational purposes only) as I went to great pains to obtain this primary source data that Justice Breyer cited in 2000. If abortion foes go after all surgical dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, they are climbing an even greater hill against the gravity of more medical and scientific findings, that do show that they are medically necessary:



Intact D&E (what the now "constitutional" federal ban prohibits) may still be safer than other options as summarized the best by Justice Ginsburg:

"According to the expert testimony plaintiffs introduced, the safety advantages of intact D&E are marked for women with certain medical conditions, for example, uterine scarring, bleeding disorders, heart disease, or compromised immune systems... Further, plaintiffs’ experts testified that intact D&E is significantly safer for women with certain pregnancy-related conditions, such as placenta previa and accreta, and for women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, such as severe hydrocephalus... Intact D&E, plaintiffs’ experts explained, provides safety benefits over D&E by dismemberment for several reasons: First, intact D&E minimizes the number of times a physician must insert instruments through the cervix and into the uterus, and thereby reduces the risk of trauma to, and perforation of, the cervix and uterus—the most serious complication associated with nonintact D&E. Second, removing the fetus intact, instead of dismembering it in utero, decreases the likelihood that fetal tissue will be retained in the uterus, a condition that can cause infection, hemorrhage, and infertility. Third, intact D&E diminishes the chances of exposing the patient’s tissues to sharp bony fragments sometimes resulting from dismemberment of the fetus. Fourth, intact D&E takes less operating time than D&E by dismemberment, and thus may reduce bleeding, the risk of infection, and complications relating to anesthesia." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html

To be fair, I haven't the medical knowledge to know if intact D&E is safer than say simple early induction or the more common D&E but do you think Congress has a better idea? And not just because some of them are scientifically illiterate! But because:

1) Congress lacks the ability to examine the patient.
2) Congress can not review the chart.
3) Congress has no idea of the patient's medical history.
4) Congress is not the one being poked and prodded.

Note for lurking freepers who may not know any better or for those who for some reason or another disagree:

These procedures are only legal when they "are necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for preservation of the life or health of the woman” (Casey). In addition, in such situations medical ethics are clear that post-viability (that is legal viability) abortions also must involve situations in addition to the above in which "the fetus has a condition with no prospect for prolonged survival after birth" (Nichols and Clark-Pearson, 2000, citing Chervenak, 1984). If you feel it is justified to risk the life and health of the mother in order to save a fetus which can not survive you might want to reconsider your "pro-life" label because such a stance is quintessentially pro-death.

[Erika]

1. The right wing court, laughable at best, made women 2nd class citizens

and gave priority to the fetus. Thanks to all the dems who let Alito and Roberts on the court.

[usregimechange]

2. Esp when the fetus can not survive! 1-1=0 = Pro-death

[usregimechange]

3. kick

[usregimechange]

4. Kicking for more to see

[gollygee]

5. Lurkers - make sure you don't skip the last paragraph

thanks for posting - K&R

[usregimechange]

7. I thought they might like that.

[knitter4democracy]

6. Kick!

I'm still furious about this.

[Hekate]

8. Giving you your 5th Rec. Thanks for disseminating the info. nt

[usregimechange]

9. Thanks for reading...