The real result of the Hyde Amendment

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
The real result of the Hyde Amendment
317
Thu, 11-19-2009 - 1:22pm

“Our medical experts have determined that your life was not in danger and you could have carried the pregnancy to term. And, by the way, you owe us $9,000.”

Her voice breaking, D.J. Feldman, a Washington, D.C. federal employee, recently spoke to the press about her struggles with her insurance company after she aborted a much-desired pregnancy because of a fetal diagnosis of anencephaly (the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp). The insurance would only cover abortion in the case of rape, incest or a threat to her life, so the fact that if Feldman had continued the pregnancy, it would have been both physically and emotionally grueling—resulting either in a fetal demise, a stillbirth, or a live birth of a newborn who would quickly die—had no effect on the insurance company’s decision."

http://www.msmagazine.com/Fall2009/stupak_pitts_outrage.asp

These are the people that suffer the most under the proposed bans on federal funds for all but rape, incest or life of the woman.

They do not take into account that a woman has a soul.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2008
Fri, 11-20-2009 - 8:37am
So maddening
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Fri, 11-20-2009 - 9:56am

There are more stories like this coming to light now:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/20/the-real-victims-stupakpitts

"From Renee E. Mestad, MD:

My patient Sherry is 24, pregnant, and the mother of a 7-month-old son. Although her pregnancy was not planned, Sherry and her husband were initially excited to have a little brother or sister for their boy. Then Sherry’s early ultrasound showed she had twins. She and her husband spent several weeks eagerly anticipating the growth of their family.

But the next ultrasound showed that the twins are conjoined, or Siamese. The babies are joined at the head, sharing a brain, and chest, sharing a heart. They have two spines, four arms, and four legs. It would be impossible to separate them. If they survive after birth, it would only be for a few minutes. One heart can’t keep two bodies alive. The risk of stillbirth is also very high.
Now 19 weeks into her pregnancy, Sherry tells me she is depressed. She wakes up every morning wondering if today will be the day her babies will die inside her. How would she deliver them? She knows that she would probably need a cesarean section because their combined size might make them too large for the birth canal. Sherry then imagines carrying the twins for another four and a half months. She sees herself delivering stillborns or watching her babies die minutes after their birth.

Sherry must decide whether to continue her pregnancy. An abortion might give her and her husband some emotional relief. And if the twins are small enough, she might not need surgery to remove them.
But because Sherry’s insurance will not pay for her abortion, she has to worry about money on top of her other fears. She is on Medicaid, which will cover the twins’ delivery, alive or dead, but not an abortion—fetal abnormality isn’t enough to get around the Hyde amendment. Although the abortion would be less expensive in a clinic, Sherry would have to go to a hospital since she could need surgery. She would be responsible for the entire bill of at least $10,000 to cover the operating room, anesthesia, medication, and other fees. This expense would destroy her family’s financial well-being.

Sherry can carry her babies to term who cannot and will not live, or she can have an abortion and possibly bankrupt her family."

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-02-2006
Fri, 11-20-2009 - 1:56pm

Both of these stories are incredibly unfortunate and serve to illustrate further why the decision to continue a pregnancy NEEDS to remain in the hands of the pregnant woman.

2010 Siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Tue, 12-29-2009 - 10:26am

What part of "rape, incest, or a threat to her life" is so difficult to comprehend?

If Ms Magazine is so concerned about her soul let them cough up the $9,000.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2007
Tue, 12-29-2009 - 10:32am

And why do other people get to decide these things for her? Shoudlnt it be up to her if she wants to watch her babies die after carrying them for 9 months.


I'm sorry but I have lost a baby in the 2nd trimester and I was there when my foster daughter had a still birth. no one should be made to go through this b/c some far removed people decided what thier values are and expect everyone else to abide by the, I think its horrible and laws like this should not exist.



Photobucket


Jenna and Michael, lucky to have Adam, Mady, Aidin and Bryn.

              *Praying for my best friend, my Dad*


 &n

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Tue, 12-29-2009 - 10:49am

As she found someone to carry out her choice to have her child killed it appears she was able to practice her much ballyhoed freedom of choice. Her insurance company is also practicing their freedom of choice, namely not to pay for it. This woman also chose to be employed by an entity (ie the Federal government) that restricts abortion coverage, and is now whining about her choice.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2005
Tue, 12-29-2009 - 4:59pm
How charmingly empathetic.



Life is simpler when you plow around the stump.


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Tue, 12-29-2009 - 9:10pm

Not really feeling any. I read my insurance coverage and have never been surprised yet.

Suggest others do the same.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Mon, 01-04-2010 - 11:48am

Some of us here believe that her anguish at being forced to carry a doomed pregnancy for months only to watch as her baby dies gasping for air shortly after birth is understandable. For those of you who claim to be "pro-life" yet see her reaction to being told to bear a huge financial burden for mitigating this horrific situation as "whiny", I would imagine the gaping hole in the law would difficult to comprehend. Stay with us, and imagine that a doomed pregnancy would be devastating for a woman's mental health - even someone as selfish as a Federal employee. OK?

<>

Correction - They were not allowed to pay for it. That's due to the Hyde Amendment. They have no choice. Clearer now?

Do you think that the defect (Lack of brain) was somehow brought on by her whininess? Perhaps you think that it would be just punishment for her to be forced to carry this doomed pregnancy for as long as possible, and labor to watch her child die, unable to give him or her comfort?

Edited 1/4/2010 1:32 pm ET by mom_carmina




Edited 1/4/2010 1:34 pm ET by mom_carmina
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2009
Mon, 01-04-2010 - 1:44pm
Yeah, I'm sure her insurance company wanted badly to pay for her abortion, and is just as indignant about this law as you. Because given a true choice, insurance companies are all about paying for things if there's any possible way they can get out of it, right?

The duties of a Mommy are many; Driver, Personal Chef, Pack Mule, Boo-Boo-Kisser, Assistant, Nurse, Shoe-Finder... and my personal favorite, pillow :)


Mommy Pillow

The duties of a Mommy are many; Driver, Personal Chef, Pack Mule, Boo-Boo-Kisser, Assistant, Nurse, Shoe-Finder... and my personal favorite, pillow :)

Pages