HEALTH vs. LIFE: Trying to clear things up

Healthy discussion going on over in the comments of my last post (person with fake emails and all caps not withstanding). But the core of the issue is the line between life and health and who gets to choose.

First off, let's talk about some different terms.

Technically, the term "Partial Birth Abortion" does not apply to any currently known and used medical procedure, as Maura stated in her comments. However, it is "assumed" that they are usually referring to the procedure known as a D&X.

D&X refers to a procedure called an Intact Dilation and Extraction. The benefits on this procedure are many, including the fact that having an intact fetus allows the family to view the remains if they choose. Remember, also, that this method is used often when a baby has already died. And, as Aurelia pointed out, "is quite often needed for babies with hydrocephalus or severe cranio-facial disabilities who cannot be delivered vaginally with their skull and brain intact."

According to this survey, this procedure is performed in 0.17% of all abortions. In other fucking words, HARDLY EVER.

D&E is a different procedure, a Dilation and Evacuation. This procedure is done between 12 and 20 weeks gestation. In this procedure, the fetus is usually, well, separated to allow for easier evacuation of the uterus. 11% of all abortions occur in the second trimester, according to the same study above.

I hope that clears up some confusion for folks about the terms.

Now, the problem with the ban is that the language is NOT CLEAR about which procedure is being banned. Part of the issue is the fact that there are many medical terms that fall into this category--this New York Times article refers to both "intact dilation and evacuations" AND "intact dilations and extractions". The line between the two procedures is very small--and doctors now face, as Maura mentioned, CRIMINAL prosecution for crossing that line--and sometimes they don't know what procedure a woman need until they've actually started the surgery.

Do you see the problem? They are taking a medical decision out of the hands of the people involved--the patient AND the doctor.

Personally, I do not know which procedure I had. At 22.5 weeks gestation (when my pregnancy ended--and that is based on my last menstrual period, remember, not the date of implantation, so the fetuses were really 20.5 week along) I was right on the line between trimesters. Plus the fact that there where two fetus (one barely alive, and one dead) could have impacted which surgery I had.

Other than having a medical termination, the options open to someone in my position are usually either a) emergency c-section, and b) induced delivery.

My doctor believed--given my particular circumstances--that it would be better for both my short term and long term health to not cut open my body if at all possible. My health was in a precarious state, and the option of a medical termination was the fastest, safest, and least complicated procedure to use. It also preserved the health of my uterus for future pregnancies.

Also, my doctor (you know, the man in the room with me, the one with a medical degree and my chart in hand? that guy) knew that inducing me, with my insanely high blood pressure, would be likely to cause me to have a stroke.

Please remember that even if my twins had both been alive, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED. Do not tell me they would have, because you are wrong. There have been NO DOCUMENTED CASES of babies born that early surviving--I don't care what pro-life websites you send me links to that say differently. THEY ARE LYING.

Trust me. Don't you think that I wanted those babies and would have done anything I could to save them? And don't you think that my doctor--who knew about my struggles to get pregnant and called the day of my surgery "the worst day of my professional career"--would have told me if that was possible?

Lastly, let's discuss, using me as an example, the difference between HEALTH and LIFE.

Where do you draw the line? Was my life actually at risk at the moment they chose to terminate the pregnancy? Well, my blood pressure was going higher and higher and they weren't able to get it under control with the medications they had available. My kidneys has begun to shut down and I'd stopped producing urine. But I was alive. I could have remained alive, possibly, under those circumstances for a while. Maybe they could have pushed it until I actually began to have seizures. Or maybe until I had a stroke. Or, maybe, since even after a stroke and having seizures I would have still been alive, maybe they would have to wait until after I felt into a coma. But wait! If I'm in a coma, I'm still alive, right? Even if my brain has been irreparably damaged, I'm still ALIVE. Right?

So, my point is, sure-- the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" has a provision for the LIFE of the mother. But there is NO PROVISION FOR HER HEALTH. Or the health of her uterus, or her future children.

To sum it all up, if I hadn't had the procedure that I had, Nicholas, Zachary, me AND Tori would all be dead.

Got it?

Comments

[wealhtheow]

1.

Thanks for the clarification, Cecily.

[The Aitch]

2.

Got it.

In fact, personally, it makes me SICK that you even have to defend yourself. Let alone keep having to explain your personal tragedy over and over again just so people will see a different point of view. And maybe ingest something other than their own misguided, under-knowledged (is that a word?) beliefs.

Who knew you would be used as such an educational tool. Now, if people would only LEARN from you, one womans story, we would all be in a better place.

P.S. I love you woman and you know this!

[Cat, Galloping]

3.

That last point is exactly the thing I was thinking about last night. It's not as though it was even an option to trade your life for the fetus' life-- you would have ALL died, so then what's been accomplished?

Damn.

I'm sorry you're still having to explain and defend yourself on this.

[KidKate]

4.

Got it.

And thanks for speaking out, Cecily. I know it can't be easy in this very public forum.

[Mary]

5.

You are a brave woman for what you have been through, and for continuing to discuss it today.

Whatever one's personal opinion is on any type of termination, I don't feel the government should have ANY say over it. Period. Leave medical decisions to women and their doctors, not our idiot president. It's bad enough our fucking health insurance companies have so much say in what is deemed 'necessary.' Now we have to fight our own elected government about it?? IDIOTS!!!

And you are absolutely right, Cec. Twenty two weekers don't make it. Period. They just don't.

[ccw]

6.

Very well said.

[Sarah]

7.

OH, I've been checking and checking for this.
THANK YOU. You explain things so clearly.
I am totally linking to you all over the fucking place. Or quoting you. Or just stealing what you wrote. ;-)
xo

[Beth]

8.

I was 23 weeks pregnant when the baby I was carrying died. I had a D&E - which was what my doctor recommended. It is terrifying to me that if that were to happen again I would have no option but to be induced and deliver a dead baby or wait to see if I spontaneously aborted. That was bad enough for me, I can't imagine how awful it must have been for you. Thank God that procedure was available to save your life. Unfortunately, it looks like others might not be so lucky.

[car]

9.

I am so sorry that you have to keep explaining it. I'm sorry that people can't understand without it being slapped in their faces. It has to be so draining to keep having to fight it all the time.

I will say thank you so much for doing it. I used to be a fundamentalist, and was pretty ignorant on all things related to pregnancy problems. I've since done a 180 on most of my views, abortion included, and most of that has had to do more with education than just viewpoint. It was hearing stories like yours that made me realize there are situations I never dreamed of, that the world isn't as easy as I would have liked it to be, that anyone who claims there is "never" a reason to do something is someone who hasn't been exposed to reality.

I've been furious for over a day about all this, and it actually made me modify my class lectures to include covering the reasons these things sometimes need done (not too much of a stretch, it's a class on the evolution of reproduction, but I didn't cover it last semester). It may be raging against the wind, but hopefully at least one or two people will start to understand.

[melissa]

10.

Hi. I recently found your blog and have been obsessively working my way through your archives; late last night, sitting on my couch in the dark, I got to the horrible stretch in late 2004 when you had a prior discussion (and the most obnoxious commenter I've EVER read) on this topic. I'm sorry -- on so many levels and for so many reasons -- that this discussion is necessary again. This country, this court, this government...I just want to cry, or rage, or scream. Thank you for your writing. I really appreciate it.

[JuliaKB]

11.

So sorry you have to keep explaining this. So sorry.

[Catherine]

12.

I read the Supreme Court's decision and the law itself defines what it means by partial-birth abortion. There isn't really room for any confusion.

Nonetheless...my doctor should be making medical treatment decisions...with my consent (or my family's if I am incapacitated)...nobody else. I don't care WHAT procedure we're talking about.

[Shazamama]

13.

Amazing post.

I want to send this to every person I know who thinks women have "partial birth abortions" because they are selfish or lazy or just plain old immoral. There's more for me to chew on than any article I've read in the NYT on the subject. I think it would make a great letter to the Times, in fact, and every other major paper.

People need to move away from the rhetoric and hear what it is really all about.

[thrice]

14.

During the D&X procedure, a woman's cervix does not fully dilate, her fetus' head gets stuck upon delivery and her fetus' brain needs to be suctioned out of its skull so the head can fit through the partially dilated cervix. This pro-life picture at the following link, illustrates the point. http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=25422

[Melessa]

15.

Got it and AMEN! I thought you would be pleased to read that very restrictive bill regarding abortions was actually vetoed by the governor here in the state of Oklahoma. I was never prouder of any political figure in my life than I was of him yesterday. Even though he is a Democrat, this is still Oklahoma (the buckle of the Bible belt) and what he did took guts. With all that you're going through here right now, I thought you might appreciate reading this. If you already knew about it-then I'm sorry for the repeated info.

[jackie]

16.

Why the hell do you have to justify what happened to you! Did you know 5 of the people who voted on this are catholic?

Jackie

[A Vistor]

17.

Consider the following scenario. You are stranded on a desert island with four others. You have enough food to last a week. A rescue ship will be arriving in two weeks. If you kill one, or maybe two, of the others, at least three of you will survive. If you don't, all of you will die.

Is it then permissible to kill?

[Katie W]

18.

I feel so sick that your government has seen fit to do this, and other politicians have allowed it to happen. Everything about this stupid law is just so fucking wrong. I'm not usually one for writing about political issues on my own blog, but this has made me so angry that I felt I had to.

[bluepaintred]

19.

i too had some confusion between the two options. i still think that the doctors need to ahve a sya in this not the polititions, and most importantly the human being carrying the child/children.

[Lisa]

20.

The sad part about this whole debate is that we're even forced to have it. In a free country, women should have the ability to make the choices that are best for them, with the advice and counsel of only their doctors and partners -- not strangers, and not lawmakers.

[bluepaintred]

21.

** A Vistor ** - providing the four people on the island are relitivly healthy, they can either choose to spread the food makingit last the two weeks or go hungry for a week. providing that their is water, they will not die of starvation in one week.

what am i saying? oh yea. your anology has no bearin gon this post.

[Jess]

22.

There is no need to defend yourself, it's a total waste of time. Whether or not your twins could have survived is not the question and really noone's business. Your health should come first, bottom line. Cutting you open to take them out? As if that would make a difference? That's ridiculous.

[jennifer]

23.

I fail to understand how anyone can be so blind as to not see the medical necessity of your situation. I am a Jehovah's Witness and as anti-abortion as a person can be, and I get it. You had two options: terminate right now or die. Either way, your son would not survive. There is no moral virtue here in your dying pointlessly. In fact, it would be contrary to Christian principles for you to in effect commit suicide. It's one thing to give your life to save someone else, but in your case no one would have benefitted from your death. And I would miss you too, which may sound odd given the gigantic differences in our beliefs and world views. But it's true.

[A Visitor]

24.

Bluepaintred:

I meant just enough food for survival, like one cup of rice per day. But even then, you're probably right. So let's make the rescue ship three weeks out. Or four. You get the idea.

Now will you answer the question?

[Noelle]

25.

Cecily,

You are an amazing woman and amazing writer. Thanks for your words and your point of view...

[Lynn]

26.

You should not have to defend yourself but I am so happy you wrote this post. Thank you. You are so brave.

[birdie]

27.

Right On. Thanks so much for sharing your story again and again. Don't really know what else to say...exept that I am sickened and sad and as much as I try not to waste my time 'hating' others, its really hard whenever I see Bush's face...

[shaynee]

28.

You should never have to defend yourself: this is your space, your words, your body (oh right, that's what they're trying to take away). Anyway, I wanted to raise one point. From what I have read of the case, I believe the procedure would be deemed criminal if the fetus were still alive when the procedure was carried out. If the fetus had already passed away in utero, I think this option is still possible. (Please correct me if I have misinterpreted the language.) That doesn't make the decision any better; I only point this out because someone above mentioned her tragic in utero loss at 23 weeks.

[thrice]

29.

Yeah, a visitor "I get the idea." You are equating a non-viable fetus to a viable human being. You are asking who should decide the value of life, IF the two forms are equal.

I'm saying that the two forms are not equal. I'm here and I'm viable. Who are YOU to decide that I can't make the choice to save myself and/or my uterus, before my fetus.

[Christine]

30.

Hello. Let me say that I've always considered myself pro-life (against abortion). But I tend to believe we're all really "pro life" anyway. Who isn't pro LIFE? It's a dumb term, but anyway, that's not my point.

But...your blog, as well as a couple others have really made me re-examine my beliefs. I still sway toward to anti-abortion side, at least I think I do, but you make so many danged valid points that it's hard to be too sure! That's good though, Cecily. You're making us think, and that's what's important.

And for the record, even if I tend to say I'm against abortion, I completely 100% back you for any decisions you made a couple of years back. You had every right (thankfully) to make the decision you did and I would support you on that...which, by the way, completely screws up my anti-abortion way of thought. I wish there was a clearer line in the sand for us to determine what is good and bad (or what we *think* is good and bad). The line is skewed.

The media gives us the extremes on both ends, and we are left to sort through it.

Bless you, dear lady.

[AmyinMotown]

31.

Thank you, Cecily.

Jackie, religious bigotry isn't really appropriate to this discussion. WTF does it have to do with anything that the SCOTUS majority are Catholic? Conservative and anti-woman, sure, but Catholic, not so much. Not all of us believe in taking away an adult's free will.

I'll say this--the blogosphere has changed my mind on this. I am prochoice, but the description of that procedure is pretty hard to stomach, and I couldn't imagine a situation where it would be necessary (imagining instead that it was always an elective procedure and how could someone not know they were pregnant until so late in the game? Typical underinformed stuff). It literally never entered my mind that there were situations where it was the only possibility to save the mother's life or health. Situations like yours, or Julia's at Uncommon Misconception. That it wasn't a procedure for someone too dumb to realize they were pregnant until so late, but instead an option for someone facing the worst news of their lives during a very much wanted pregnancy.

This is terrible, and I pray for the families left without options because of this decision.

[Aurelia]

32.

You know I love you right? Like with great big awesome blogkisses, right?

[A Visitor]

33.

Thrice:

I think I get it now. (Correct me if I am wrong.) You are saying that killing non-viable human beings is permissible, whereas killing viable human beings is not permissible. The difference is viability.

I'm not sure how you define viability though. I think you mean "capable of living" outside the uterus, but that's a very arbitrary deliniation. The point at which an unborn child is "viable" changes with technology: babies are viable today that were not viable ten years ago.

If I understand you correctly, you would seem to agree that killing certain fetuses (fetus is Latin for child), which might have been permissible ten years ago because they were not viable, is no longer permissible today due to technological advances.

And therefore, when technology is sufficiently advanced so as to be capable of sustaining the life of a fetus (Latin for child) outside the uterus from the moment of conception, you will be opposed to *all* abortions because all fetuses will then be viable.

In twenty-five years you're going to be a solid pro-lifer.

[Katie]

34.

Can someone explain to me how Supreme Court rulings work? Is every bit of text included in the ruling considered official (law)? I read the ruling the other day, and the 1st paragraph of the ruling is very clear about which procedure is referred to. However, when you get down to the actual amended U.S. law, it is very vague. So is the explanation provided by the Supreme Court in the ruling always used hereafter to help interpret the law?

[uccellina]

35.

I do not have words sufficient to express my contempt for your behavior, A Visitor. Take it elsewhere.

[Jenni]

36.

OK - question re the article of D&X linked above. Why wouldn't a woman have to go through labor for it? I honestly don't know.

And good question Katie. Would love to hear the answer.

[A Visitor]

37.

Uccellina:

Clearly, the viability argument isn't working for your side. It sounds respectable and everything, but you might end up sleeping with the enemy. Best to stick with situation ethics in which killing innocent human beings is justified when it benefits the majority - or those who happen to be in charge.

[Dana]

38.

For pity sake A Visitor give it a fuckin rest. HAVE YOU BEEN IN THAT SITUATION? OBVIOUSLY NO AS YOU ARE STILL ALIVE. SO STF UP.

Pardon my potty mouth.

C I am so sorry, I cannot get over you still have to have this conversation with these pin heads.

[A Visitor]

39.

Dana:

You're right, I haven't been in that situation and don't blame C for a decision she didn't make (and may not have made).

Care to address the viabllity question?

[Catherine]

40.

Katie:

The Supreme Court issues a ruling on the constitutionality of a law in question. The law itself is the law. The Supreme Court ruling is just the constitutional interpretation...the stamp of constitutional approval, as it were.

The law itself is not vague at all.

§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited - (b) As used in this section -- (1) the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which -- (A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that theperson knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;

[BrooklynGirl]

41.

I don't believe in feeding the trolls, truly I don't. But here's this: Child in Latin is liber.

The assertion that fetus means child is uninformed pro-life propaganda, like the rest of your post.

[Charlie]

42.

So in the desert island scenario, if we follow the moral guidance of our Visitor, everyone dies. And that's the pro-life answer?

[wickedwisdom]

43.

I used my LJ name instead of my real name. Since there's a pro-life poster that has my name.

I applaud you for trying to educate instead of manipulate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of anti-abortion people out there that spread lies and half truths in the name of religion and "saving babies."

I'd really like to know how many children pro-lifers have adopted in order to "end murder."

Thanks for sharing your story.

[Theresa]

44.

I wholeheartdly agree that this whole siliosity is the result of too many stupid people working together and who think they know best...

Just a note:I was born at 24 weeks old, so there IS a slight chance of viability at that early in the gestation period. I was severely premature (4 months!)but I still alive and kicking today.

[thrice]

45.

A Visitor:

I know it’s hard, but try to take the hostility out of your posts. The supreme court’s definition of viability has been 24-weeks. But give it a twirl and come back with links to babies that survived birth at 23-weeks or less. For the sake of this dispute it is better to not go on 25 years from now tangents. We are in real-time.

While there is a provision for a mother’s life in yesterday’s decision, there was no provision for fetal viability. When a woman chooses to abort a fetus that will never be viable (even at term), the safest procedure should be available to her.

Yesterday’s decision did not alter the timing of abortions. There is no nationwide ban on abortions 23-weeks or earlier. Yesterday’s decision banned one type of procedure at 23-weeks.

[Ann]

46.

I don't want arguing with the visitor to take away from the admiration I have for Cecily, and the sadness I feel for the situation she was in.

Like others who have already posted, Cecily, I'm in awe of your ability to articulate and explain the issues when they are so emotionally saturated for you.

The visitor seems to be interested in having an abstract ethical debate. I contend that abstraction can blunt compassion and recognition of "real world" factors, like, does Charlie lose Cecily, the boys and all hope of future babies, consoling himself with the reflection that in 25 years it would be no problem at all? Could he really live with the "ethical" position that he cannot act to save Cecily because it would hasten (though not cause) the death of one of the babies?

And by the way, as strong a believer in technology as I am, it's ludicrous to imagine that 25 years would be enough time to push the borders of viability back to conception.

[A Visitor]

47.

"So in the desert island scenario, if we follow the moral guidance of our Visitor, everyone dies."

Perhaps - barring divine intervention and a mistake about the timing of the rescue ship.

"And that's the pro-life answer?"

Yes. Murder is never permitted for any reason, period.

"I'd really like to know how many children pro-lifers have adopted in order to 'end murder.'"

I honestly don't know. Not enough, apparently. But there are lots of websites like this one:

http://www.mayweadopt.com/

I know many pro-life adoptive families, along with pro-life people working to facilitate adoptions, but that's anecdotal.

"Just a note:I was born at 24 weeks old, so there IS a slight chance of viability at that early in the gestation period. I was severely premature (4 months!)but I still alive and kicking today."

I'm glad you brought this up: another nail in the coffin of the "fetal non-viability" argument for abortion.

[Ann]

48.

Whoa! "Murder" is a pretty strong term, don't you think? This is the difficulty being so abstract leads to. You've just equated sneaking up on a sleeping shipwreck survivor and bashing them in the head so you can eat their daily allotment of rice, and Cecily's situation.

Two totally different scenarios. You cannot and should not try to reduce them to the same thing.

[Katie]

49.

Catherine - That's the text I was referring to that I felt was vague. I admit that I have never had the guts to look up exactly what is done (the exact medical procedures) during a D&E. To me, it sounds like what is described in that text obviously refers to a D&X, but *could* refer to a D&E as well. Assuming that I haven't gotten my acronyms mixed up by now, lol.

[Katie]

50.

I held off responding to A Visitor, hoping he'd just go away, but I'll say this -
Why are you comparing a 24-week fetus to a 22-week fetus? It is clear that your medical knowledge is sketchy - there is little comparison between the two in terms of viability.

[thrice]

51.

A Visitor-

You are arguing for the wrong side. The question of viability is 23-weeks and less, not 24 or more weeks.

[Genie]

52.

Jeff...it's time for you to go "visit" someone else. It's clear from your website that your personal faith is a blessing to you and yours...quit using it to bash others and pick at their wounds.

[A Visitor]

53.

"I know it’s hard, but try to take the hostility out of your posts."

OK, I'll work on it. But you really didn't address the viability question at all. Instead, you changed the subject.

"The supreme court’s definition of viability has been 24-weeks."

The age of a viable fetus is impossible to define this way. It is different for different babies, with different health conditions, different mothers, and different levels of medical care available.

What you originally seemed to be saying is that viability and non-viability determine the morality of abortion.

Now you seem to be saying that a Supreme Court ruling determines the morality of abortion. That's a welcome development. I assume that when the Supreme Court overturns Roe, you will be a solid pro-lifer.

[Jessica]

54.

I actually agree with you on one point, Visitor ... if we come to the point where an embryo can be supported outside the uterus from the moment of conception there will be no more need for abortions because of preeclampsia coupled with prematurity. I personally think that day is a long way off, but let's not argue about that.

But I see absolutely no point in making a mother deliver a child that is doomed to die TODAY because its lungs are not developed. I think making a baby suffocate is inhumane. I also don't believe a child that has ZERO chance of survival (like Potter's Sequence, or anencephalus) should be carried to term and die a dismal death. And I'm sorry, I believe the life of the mother always trumps the life of the child. I think outlawing this specific procedure is stupid, has to do with emotion and not science, and is potentially dangerous.

[A Visitor]

55.

"Whoa! 'Murder' is a pretty strong term, don't you think? This is the difficulty being so abstract leads to."

You're right, Ann, it was too provocative. I got lazy and couldn't think of another word that means "deliberately taking an innocent human life".

[thrice]

56.

I wasn’t changing the subject. I was explaining that the definition of viability was the supreme court and medical personnel, not mine. As someone said, before there has NEVER been a case of fetal viability at 22 weeks. Cecily’s twins were not viable. And if that’s the point that we are disagreeing on, then I don’t know what to say. It’s medical fact that a 24-week fetus can survive and a 22-week fetus cannot survive outside the uterus.

[A Visitor]

57.

No problem, Thrice. I understand your point thus far. I'm no expert on fetal viability and will take your word on the non-viability of a 22 week fetus.

But once again, my question for you is this: is fetal viability a coherent and sustainable criteria for the morality of abortion? Are you opposed to all abortions after 24 weeks? Will you be opposed to abortion at 22 weeks when, at some point in time, a 22 week fetus becomes viable?

Furthermore, what is the moral basis of using fetal viability as a standard? That is not too far removed from using health or independent survivability as a standard. We heard arguments in the Terry Schiavo case to the effect that she couldn't feed herself, and therefore she shouldn't be fed artificially. Well, a newborn child can't feed itself either. It isn't "viable" apart from a great deal of care from the mother and possibly others.

My point is that fetal viability is an arbitrary standard, a moving target, created out of thin air. And it doesn't do much for your side anyway. It doesn't protect "a woman's right to choose" in any significant way - except that it helps to water down society's respect for all human life.

[Cecily]

58.

Guys-- enough.

Visitor, stop. You aren't helping. The point of this post was just to explain the definitions of the procedures and how they apply in my situation or similar ones. I'm pro-choice and you won't change my mind any more than I expect to change your mind.

Don't like abortion? Fine. Don't fucking have one.

Everyone else, let's not respond anymore. M'kay?

[Cecily]

59.

Oh, and Visitor--I don't like people who post comments without an email address. If you aren't willing to post yours so you and I can discuss this off blog, I will block your IP. I think you've had your say.

[Rhonda]

60.

Cecily,
I have so much love and admiration for you for standing there and telling your story. I have been thinking of you *so* much this week.

You are awesome. Absolutely awesome.

[Dea]

61.

Oh Cecily, I feel like it's 2 or so years ago reading these comments over again. I hope this bickering isn't tearing you apart and opening old wounds. This world is filled with evil people, and mean people who like to ride their moral ponies all over people's feelings.
Anyhow....
Today while I was in my RE's office getting my first IUI my husband and I talked about your post yesterday and what it means to me. He agrees with my point of view, which is the same as yours. He promised me that when I finally get pregnant and if something horrible happens (like what happened to you) he will always choose my life. It was touching to me that he said that. I've always been a pro-choicer, but I always believed that I would never ever have an abortion. But now I know I would never have one as a means of birth control, but as a means to protect my life, the life of my future children, and to protect my child from pain, I will. I just hope that if that ever happens my doctor won't go to jail.

[kathy a]

62.

cecily -- i found my way here via a friend, and am so glad you posted. you are absolutely 100% right that a decision like the one you had to make is only the business of you and your doctor.

it is not the business of some damned troll who has never faced your circumstances. who thinks his right to blither to hither and yon is *far* more important than some petty girly concern like YOUR PERSONAL HEALTH AND LIFE.

[Rhonda]

63.

Thank you for writing this.

I had a D&X at 23 weeks, when we found out (late) that our baby had multiple defects, including severe hydrocephaly. I didn't have time for an amnio, but post-termination tissue testing identified Trisomy 13.

I've not had the energy to write about it again on my own blog, even though I know how important it is that those of us who have been through late-term abortions make the reality known. So I thank you for telling the story.

(I cancelled my one anonymous e-mail address because after I posted my story, I kept getting anti-abortion e-mails from some jerk. So I apologize for posting without one, but I hope you understand!)

[AussieAndrea]

64.

Cecily, I first began reading you around the time you lost Nicholas and Zachary. Such a heartbreaking experience.

I really hope that if one day I find myself in such a challenging, conflicted situation, I can summon the strength and grace that you have. Thank you for being an inspiration to me, for modelling the kind of woman I would like to become.

[shelli]

65.

Cec - I'm Curious, and your wonderful blog is giving us a chance for our OWN study here - have ANY of the,er, "vocal" ladies who believe that you should have continued the pregnancy, against the wishes of your doctors, had a change of heart, or shift in thinking based on your true, and painful for you to remember words?

I'm just wondering, because it seems like these 'debates," which are never pretty, never change anyone's mind.

I'm just curious.

Sending you love and strength, as always,
Shelli

[Melissa]

66.

You loved and still love those two little boys. You didn't give them up. They were taken from you. I know if your could have done anything to keep them alive, you would have done it.

I love you for loving your babies so much that you are willing to open up your grief and pain to others in order to teach people who would otherwise remain ignorant.

Stay strong.

[Kerri]

67.

Hi Cecily,
First I am so sorry for your loss, the stress to you and your lovely husband must have been awful.
I am half a world away and am watching what is happening in your country with much fear, as your president has our Prime Minister in his back pocket. I worry that while at the moment we have the right to chose I fear someday we won't.

I absolutely believe that you and Charlie had to make the hardest descision ever with no time to make it. I know when I have a big decision to make, one that will effect the lives of my family I like to take time to mull it over, weigh up the pros and cons. You had not ime. It was literally a life and death sitution. So It is not my place to judge you on that.( or anyone else's for that matter) I wasn't there.

All I am sure of is that God was holding you in the palm of His hand that day and every day. We all see His Grace and Love in Tori.

[Strugi]

68.

We can argue about this forever-I am willing to bet that noone was as "pro-life" for those little boys as Cecily and Charlie. They made the best decision that they could, as Cecily pointed out the boys would have died, Cecily would have died, and depending on when you believe life begins Tori would have died or never existed. It sucks that they had to be in that position, but it is important that women (and their partners) are offered that option.

So, what can we do to help? Clearly voting is more important than ever-is there anything else we can do.

Cecily-again, I am so sorry. My husband and I went through a very scary pregnancy. It turned out well and we have a beautiful little boy (so ultimately, we don't know what you have been through), but we were left having difficult discussions. If X happens at 20 weeks we do this...Also, my OB and my perinatologist made it clear that they would do everything in their power to make sure the baby was healthy, but, ultimately I was the patient that they needed to care for.

[Julie]

69.

Cec baby - my heart is just broken over this decision. I just wanted to say I love and support you 150%!

[gillian]

70.

Thank you for being so open and educating all of us who have no clue what you and your family went thru.
I thank you for being so brave and I betcha Tori will thank you everyday..

[baggage]

71.

Thank you for continuing to tell your story.

[danielle]

72.

Cecily
I dont really understand why you have to defend your stance. It is pretty clear you did what had to be done not what you wanted to do. I am sure what you wanted to do was have 2 healthy boys.

Even though I actually support the decision of the supreme court from a medical standpoint it is clear you were at risk and made the safest choice in a shitty situation.

Despite our differences I am sorry you are forced to defend your choice to save your life.

[ktpupp]

73.

Cec, I love you. I just want you to know that right now, more than ever.

[Kier]

74.

Got it, Cecily. Much love being sent through the blogosphere. And a hearty dose of admiration as well.

To everyone else: from now on, I'd encourage us all to ignore the "visitors" and their need for insanely pointless debating. I'm all for debating and discussion, but not when it takes away from the original post and leads nowhere. "Visitors" will never learn to shut their mouths.

*edited: I see that Cecily has already asked for a cease on the responding to "visitor". So glad!

[MLO]

75.

I am going to say something really controversial. It is relevant if all of the 5 are Roman Catholic - or report to the Papal See in Rome. You see, the Pope has stated in no uncertain terms that any and all politicians who do not actively work to deny all abortions are to be excommunicated.

If this affected the SCOTUS ruling there may be grounds to impeach these justices since they allowed a FOREIGN POWER to influence them to a greater extent than the actual rule of law. Now, I realize this is a long-shot since these folks won't impeach the current criminal elements in power - the ones that aren't hiding behind lifetime appointments.

These men took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution first and foremost. This oath precludes them from taking orders from the Pope. Due to their religious situation, they should have excused themselves from ruling since they could not rule to support the right of doctors and patients to support health without being excommunicated.

Now, I'm not saying that having a given relationship with a given religion precludes the ability to think critically and work in the best interests of the country. Rather, I'm saying that the justices have shown that their true alliance is not to the oath they took to uphold the U.S. Constitution is lesser than the commitment to a foreign power - the Vatican.

It ain't pretty, but it is a hard truth.

Pax,

MLO

[Shelley]

76.

Maybe I'm naive but I don't believe there are many who chose to have an abortion without much soul-searching and a great deal of angst. I certainly don't believe that anyone who makes the decision to end their pregnancy, whether wanted or not, does so lightly at any stage.

[Donnie]

77.

Cecily,

I wish every baby in the world were as wanted and valued as Nicholas and Zachary were. Why can't people understand that in the vast majority of cases when this procedure is done, it is done on a woman who would much rather be holding her baby in her arms and is consenting to termination on the council of her DOCTOR?!
Yes, I personally have moral issues with abortion in some cases, but as someone else mentioned: the *true* conservative in me wants LESS governmental control over my life, not more... and so, I am deeply distrubed by today's ruling. Why should government have any say in your medical treatment and your reproductive choices?

-Donnie

PS: To the person who asked if these discussions ever "changed" anyone's mind.
Um. Yeah. Little bit, actually.

I'm not saying it's 100% because of Cecily- but my combined experiences in the blogosphere have prompted me to switch my party affiliation. Although I still consider myself fairly conservative, I could no longer call myself "Republican." I'm now a registered Independent.
:)

[Teenuh]

78.

The thing that is most terrifying about this decision is that it could be the first step towards Roe v Wade being overturned. And that is such a huge step backward for women's health in the US.

And much love to you as a person, Cecily. I am so glad you are still with us, the world would be a much worse place without you or Tori in it, though it is terribly sad that Nicholas and Zachary are not here with us.

[Jenn in AK]

79.

My God, woman! Why do you have to defend being a live every single time this comes up? Why can't people READ a bit of the blog and make somewhat EDUCATED comments instead of talking out their asses?

[jeni]

80.

Delurking to say:

Thanks for writing this beauiful and educational post.

[A Loving Mom]

81.

I am sorry that you can't understand why some may be upset that you chose to kill your one baby than to have the c-section and see if that same medical man that did so well at saving your life could save your precious baby as well.

But then you would have had a section and we all know how hard it is to have babies after having one of those...I have only been able to have 3 more so far.

I am sure what you went through was traumatic, but I am sure it was more traumatic to the babythat was murdered....sorry, spared.

I pray GOD forgive those who murder their babies, regardless of how far along they were.

And yes, a baby can be born at 22.5 weeks and live.....I know one. Andthat is 22.5 weeks gestation, not trying to make it look better by saying 20.5 since implantation.

[Emma]

82.

I don't have anything to add to this debate. I just want to add my voice to those giving you support. This must feel like a deeply personal ruling. And bring back a lot of emotions.

Thinking of you.

[Slim]

83.

I am sending the calmest, most loving support I can your way, even though part of me wants to scream.

[Miss Hope]

84.

I had three siezures with my first. Going eclampsic is no walk in the park. Or so they tell me. I have no recollection of any of it. I had one siezure, which indicated to get the baby out NOW and two post-op in intensive care. I almost died. I was less than a hair away from a full blown stroke.

But, I was lucky. I was 33.3 weeks along. My baby was able to make it...eventually. I go pale and shaky when I think of all of this and what if I had been 20 weeks along? Would they just go ahead and let me die?

My husband was all, "YEAH! PRO-LIFE SCORES!". That is...until I sat him down and had a serious talk. One thing I said? What if your daughter in the other room was in this situation. The doctor comes out and says this stupid law prevents me from saving her life. Go say good-bye." Yeah, he had to do some re-thinking.

Thank you, Cec, for your constant viligance on our (the women's) behalf. Your daughter is very lucky.

[Lisak]

85.

So well said. It is no ones business but the parents and their medical care provider. No one faces a situation like this with ease.

[jen]

86.

Dear A Loving Mom. It would be sort of hard for Cecily to be a loving mom to the twins if she was dead. Cecily, as always, thank you for standing up and explaining stuff to people who aren't as educated about this issue. You are my hero.

[Elena]

87.

"I am going to say something really controversial. It is relevant if all of the 5 are Roman Catholic - or report to the Papal See in Rome. You see, the Pope has stated in no uncertain terms that any and all politicians who do not actively work to deny all abortions are to be excommunicated."

Ah! Finally a safe point for jumping in! ; )

The Catholic Justices don't report to the the "Papal See" any more than Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry do! (BTW all three of them are Catholic and as far as I know have not been excommunicated yet!)

What Catholic Moral teaching actually states is as follows:

"Actions that might result in the death of a child are morally permitted only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) treatment is directly therapeutic in response to a serious pathology of the mother or child;
(2) the good effect of curing the disease is intended and the bad effect foreseen but unintended;

(3) the death of the child is not the means by which the good effect is achieved; and

(4) the good of curing the disease is proportionate to the risk of the bad effect. Fulfillment of all four conditions precludes any act that directly hastens the death of a child."

So ending the pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother is NOT against the teachings of the Catholic church and it is disengenuous to say otherwise.

What you might want to debate instead MLO is what methods are considered licit or illicit in ending the pregnancy. A dilation procedure at the half way point in pregnancy might even be licit.

[Catherine]

88.

Thanks for writing this all out. I'll be spreading it far and wide to help explain this very simple idea to very, very stupid people.

I have a button that says "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." As I was laughing my ass off reading your trolls' comments just now, I thought of that button. You're right. I can't even get angry at them anymore. They are just too ridiculous. And why are they ALWAYS awful writers?? Someone on my blog said that clear writing is a sign of a clear mind. That must be it...

I'm a bit less angry today, but even more determined. There are more of us than there are of them, babe. We WILL prevail.

[prolifebutthisistoomuch]

89.

Cecily was not given a choice. The choice was to go home without her sons, or to die with them.
Whatever choice her doctor made was the one that gave her the best chance of surviving her pregnancy.
Surley you are not suggesting that anyone would have considered NOT trying to keep Cecily alive, if that would have meant that one of her babies could have been born and lived a painful, traumatic, short existence?
Shurly you are not demanding that families who have been given heartbreaking news, that if thier child lives past birth that they will be subject to horror and pain with no hope of surviving or only surviving with everlasting pain and suffering?
Right now, a child has a chance of surviving and being ok at 20-some weeks. If a woman chooses to end her pregnancy (for any reason), past the point that a baby can live outside the mother, all we are asking is that you not kill the child without medical reason. Cecily's personal tradgedy has already illustrated the fact that her body and life would have been sacrificed to deliver her son alive with very little chance of survival. Why doesn't this new law address these issues?
Lumping every case together under the banner of "choice", is not fair to anyone.
Why should those who have been hurt the worst by going-through something like this through no choice of thier own, have to defend something that most of them would not choose?

[SandyC]

90.

HI Cec,

I'm nominating you for sainthood. I would not have the strength and patience to bring all this forward again. You rock.

[ls]

91.

I, for one, am glad you are alive. Very glad. I think you are too. Abortion, no matter when, is one of those issues that people need to be able to walk insomeone else's shoes, or to stare death in the face (poor Charlie) and say good-bye to two very very wanted children. I hate that you have to defend yourself, yet I think that by putting a face to statistics, a person behind a medical condition is very important. And I think that your two boys knew, at some level, that you loved, and still love, them.

[chrisj]

92.

Cecily, I cannot even begin to imagine the pain you and Charlie felt (and continue to feel). I haven't read any of the comments from this post or the last, but I just wanted to say I am sorry for all of that pain, not to mention the additional pain caused by self-righteous people who try to make this about religion and morals or whatever else they are preaching. Bottom line is you had already lost one son, were about to lose another, and Charlie was about to lose all three of you. Doctors are in charge of high-risk situations for a reason. How horrible for you to have to go through losing your children and then to have people act like things could have happened any differently!

[liz]

93.

(((Cecily)))

I hope you don't mind that I've linked to you on my blog. If you'd rather I didn't I'll take it down.

[Amy]

94.

Got it, Cecily, but I'd gotten it long before this post. I hate that you have to try and explain yourself, over and over, so that others -- who feel free to come here and judge your situation from their computer terminal pulpits -- can possibly "get it" as well.

As I said to you earlier this week, thank you for continuing to talk about this. I admire your bravery and honesty more than you can know.

[MLO]

95.

Hrm... Being a Catholic School Survivor - and, yes, I am purposely using that term, I can say that the majority of Catholics do not have the understanding you displayed, Elena. And I am including the majority of the clergy I had the displeasure of knowing. (I also suffered Baptist Bible Camp. So I'm an equal opportunist here.)

There is _no_ Catholic hospital in this country that allows these procedures - even if it will save the lives of the women involved. I live in a very Catholic area of the country and one of the major problems we have been having here is that several of the larger hospital groups are Catholic run. In order to practice any type of medicine at these institutions physicians of all types must sign affidavits that they will under no circumstance prescribe birth control or perform abortive procedures. Not even D&C is allowed - you have to go to another neighboring hospital.

No OB/GYNs practice at these places anymore. The laity and religious orders are interpreting this much more strictly than the "official" record. This is a fact that I have seen played out amongst my friends and family.

The Holy See did in fact tighten strictures from what you are posting - and careful reading of this list precludes almost any circumstance for an abortive procedure. And the Pope reiterated that any politician that does not actively work to ban all abortions will be excommunicated.

Excommunication is a very, very big deal in Catholicism. You cannot partake of the Eucharist; you cannot marry in the Church; and, you lose your soul to the devil. For those of faith, this is a very, very big deal. All of these men claim religion plays a central role in their thinking and thus I find their ability to rule without letting the threat of excommunication wiggle in disingenuous.

Now, I know some would say this is "Catholic-bashing". Catholicism is a special case since the US has diplomatic relations with the Vatican. As such, for the US it is primarily a foreign power exercising influence upon our government. Now I have the same problem with the Israeli lobby, the British lobby, the Dutch lobby, etc. These are foreign powers involving themselves in internal politics.

Now, granted, I have problems with the idea of any man-made institution, be it government or religion, having any say in what I or anyone else does with my body in conjunction with medical care when they have no medical training. And, sometimes when they do and it is outside their scope of expertise. I reject all organized religion due to their insistence on the politics of division rather than the politics of hope.

This ruling has set other bad precedents that aren't even being scratched - the right to medical privacy has been eroded by this ruling in a very real way. The right to the doctor / patient confidentiality has been infringed upon. (And, in the case of much of this type of care, insurance does not pay and thus is not entitled to the information.) It may not be something that this readership is aware of, but reproductive medicine is not the only area where there is more and more infringement.

Every special interest medical group has some issue with this administrations pro-business anti-life medical policies. For instance, they are lobbying to take away the rights of a significant minority of patients to have drugs compounded. This is a very big deal when commercial versions of drugs can kill you do to the way they are compounded.

Research dollars have been continuously cut for anything but the war - including monies for head injury rehab for veterans.

This administration - including the SCOTUS appointees - have a culture of death and destruction, not life. And very few outside of the various special interest groups have noticed any of it.

This ruling is a lot more dangerous than it initially appears - and that is saying a lot. It has given the legislature the ability to practice medicine without knowing anything about the patient - an extremely dangerous thing. What else are they going to do on their way to creating a theocracy?

Pax,

MLO

[andanotherthing]

96.

I really hope that Cecily is tough enough to handle what she's got herself into by putting her very personal story out here.
But let's not forget those who have been thrown into the debate for health reasons. Might as well
bring them into this mess while we're at it.
In my state, there is only one place that does late-term abortions. Unfortunately, woman who suffer late-term miscarriages are sent to that very same place unless like Cecily they are in crisis.
This is what happened to my friend who's (much wanted after fertility treatments) baby died in utero.
When she went to have her child stillborn, as she was walking into the facility, obviously large since she had been about 33 weeks along when her son died, she was yelled at by protesters to "Don't kill your baby."
She and her husband and God knows how many other women face this absurd insult just as Cecily has faced it here.
Pro-choicers are hiding behind these personal tradgedys. Rape victims are used by pro-choicers and children-of rape victims are further used as rhetorical devices just as Cecily's body and her children and other wanted children are used as hypothetical excuses for an inexcusable act.
I don't care what you call it, but we all know what it is. It is killing a living child who can survive outside the womb for the sole reason to prevent life.
Please stop hiding behind Cecily and her children and families who are suffering. They are not all as strong as I truly hope that Cecily is and they never chose to defend the indefensible.

[Jaine]

97.

Amy just said everything I wanted to, Cecily. I sooooooooooo get it.

[Sophia]

98.

As always I am in awe of you. You're in my thoughts and prayers.

[Amy]

99.

Not to fan the flames or anything, but GAH, misinformation makes me crazy.

So to "andanotherthing" and any one else who wants to start talking about the PBA-Act and "late term abortions," please make sure you understand the law as it currently exists in this country.

A few basic facts:

First, under Roe v. Wade, and thus, even prior to the enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act in 1993, abortions may not be performed once the fetus crosses the line of viability. While where this line should be drawn is a matter of debate, the practical reality is that most doctors, hospitals and other abortion providers will draw it at 24 weeks.

What this means is that abortions of "convenience" may not be provided after 24 weeks. When we talk about women having "late term abortions", i.e., women having them after 24 weeks, we are talking about situations where the fetus has either died or has been diagnosed with conditions rendering it incompatible with life outside the womb.

Let me reiterate that -- the PBA-Act does nothing to address the issue of women having "convenience" abortions after 24 weeks. Even prior to enactment of this law, such procedures were not allowed under the jurisprudence established by Roe v. Wade.

Second, let's imagine a hypothetical to understand what types of situations the PBA-act does apply to. Imagine that you are 28 weeks pregnant and have just learned that your baby, while alive, suffers from a horrible defect and it will not survive after delivery. This defect causes your child to have extreme hydrocephalus, i.e., an excessively large head.

What are your options? You can wait to deliver a baby that you know will die, and will suffer as it does so. Or you can choose to terminate the pregnancy. Prior to enactment of the PBA-act, your doctor had the option of performing the D&X proceedure, which is medically indicated in your case due to the child's hydrocehpalus. Now that this procedure is unavailable to you -- because your life is not compromised. In other words, the Congress and SCOTUS have inserted themselves into the patient doctor relationship and made the decision -- years ahead of time and without personal knowledge of your situation -- about what is best for you and your baby. I don't know about you, but that is not how I want my medical decisions made.

So please, you can be pro-life, and you can express your views -- although you must realize that Cecily's blog is hardly the place to find a receptive audience for those views -- but do so on the basis of honest and accurate information.

[Siobhan]

100.

Cecily, thank you for speaking out.

I honor you for your bravery and grace in dealing with this entire situation, and I am grateful for your generosity in sharing your story with others, whether they are capable of "getting it" or not.