PBA ban question

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
PBA ban question
28
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 10:53am

Let me begin by making my reason for this question clear.

Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 11:12am

I can't think of any. If it effects her health then it is effecting her life because part of her life is her health. Plus, by the time you get to 6 months of pregnancy and there are severe defects in the fetus, it can easily threaten the life of the mother. I don't want to read about it or click on links but I suggest doing a google search for PBA and health clause or PBA and danger to life of the mother. It might give you the answers you are searching for.


As I have said previously, my sister did not discover the severe defects of her ancephalitis baby (no skull or brain developing) until her ultrasound which is done around 4 months along. Having a "late term abortion" saved her life.


Unbelievably, the odds of having another ancephalitsis baby was like a million to one and her next pregnancy was another one. They discovered it before the first trimester was over, though.


"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 11:36am
but isn't 4th month considered a 2nd trimester abortion?

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 11:41am
How does having an ancephalitis baby affect the life of the mother?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2004
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 11:53am
The PBA ban that President Bush signed has nothing to do with the timeline of the pregnancy. There is nothing in it about gestational weeks. It specifically bans a particular procedure (partially delivering the baby, drilling a hole in its skull, sucking its brains out, and then fully delivering the dead baby). This type of abortion can only be performed later in pregnancy because of what the doctor has to do to the baby.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 11:58am

The PBA ban that President Bush signed has nothing to do with the timeline of the pregnancy. There is nothing in it about gestational weeks. It specifically bans a particular procedure (partially delivering the baby, drilling a hole in its skull, sucking its brains out, and then fully delivering the dead baby). This type of abortion can only be performed later in pregnancy because of what the doctor has to do to the baby.


Then wouldn't that mean the ban DOES have something to do with a timeline?

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 12:29pm

In her case, the spinal fluid was leaking out into the uterus.


Here is some information:


http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/disorders/anencephaly_doc.htm


http://www.angelfire.com/mb/jessicasjourney/info.html


Some women do chose to carry the babies to term. The baby can live for

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 3:58pm

So on to the question - there is a clause in the proposal we've talked about on here for the LIFE of the mother but not her health.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2004
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 4:18pm
Actually, there are conditions during pregnancy that threaten the mother's health w/o necessarily threatening her life. I believe that in some cases a pregnancy can put such a strain on the kidneys, that it could damage them and she would need dialysis. I can't quote the source (like Carrie, I read a lot, and can't always go back to exactly where I got my info) but I've read that somewhere. There are also things that can happen during a pregnancy that can threaten a mother's future reproductive health. If there are problems with the placenta, it could force the mother to have a hysterectomy. I don't really understand that as a justification to kill the baby that you've got, but that's my opinion.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 4:59pm

Just off the top of my head, infections--that can occur at any point during pg could be life threatening to the mother.


I

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Mon, 10-11-2004 - 5:05pm

Actually, there are conditions during pregnancy that threaten the mother's health w/o necessarily threatening her life. I believe that in some cases a pregnancy can put such a strain on the kidneys, that it could damage them and she would need dialysis. I can't quote the source (like Carrie, I read a lot, and can't always go back to exactly where I got my info) but I've read that somewhere. There are also things that can happen during a pregnancy that can threaten a mother's future reproductive health. If there are problems with the placenta, it could force the mother to have a hysterectomy. I don't really understand that as a justification to kill the baby that you've got, but that's my opinion.


what I am specifically looking for though is regarding PBA .... Kerry voted against the PBA ban b/c he said it didn't have a clause for life of the mother (it does) then it was said "well yeah but what about health" (not by him but elsewhere) - so what I am trying to clarify is if there is a NEED for a clause for Health AND life or if life is enough.

Photobucket

Pages