I wonder... are the doctors interested in getting the chance to figure out how to treat the condition, which is Potter syndrome?
Without working kidneys, newborns are unable to rid their bodies of deadly toxins and go into renal failure. Without amniotic fluid in the womb, they are born unable to breathe.
The article describes the woman's psychological suffering as people talk to her about her visible pregnancy and assume good fortune. There is physical suffering as the baby's movement lacks the "fluid cushioning" of amniotic fluid — suffering of both the mother and the doomed child.
The doctors may simply fear that the law will apply to them and choose to interpret it expansively to protect themselves rather than to do what they and the woman feel is best for her. That choice may be augmented by the prediction that the story of this case will strengthen political opposition to the new law.
I have noticed how few stories like this have appeared in the press. I tend to think there will be political acceptance of the new statutes unless there is a constant stream of reports about suffering like what we are seeing here.
The woman's father, a Catholic, is quoted, saying, "I asked her, ‘Would you mind if I put my hand on your stomach?’ I wanted to feel the life. It’s hard to comprehend there won’t be life.” And: "I believe in life and all that. But [when] two doctors, three doctors say this is this, they should be able to terminate early to save the mental life of the mother."
The ambiguity about the law lies in the language about viability. Does viablity refer to the number of weeks that marks the viability point in a healthy fetus or can you say that a baby with a lethal defect never reaches viability and therefore fits within the exception for the entire length of the pregnancy?
Here's the relevant statutory text: "the fetus has not achieved viability under s. 390.01112 and two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality."
If you have trouble reading that — which requires click through to the other statute — then you should see why the doctors are so cautious.
Posts
60 comments:
Are they trying to set up a test legal case?
It is not clear how the Dorberts’ doctors applied the law in this situation
The law seems quite clear and accommodative to this family’s situation. Are the doctors inserting their personal judgement in this case?
…and with a Catholic family you’re being disingenuous to talk about their situation only in terms of Florida law…
…and have these parents (or all the other parents Ann is surprised liberal media isn’t talking about) considered driving to another state or are they happy to be giving birth to a political football?
i really think, that this whole article could be boiled down, to These words:
That choice may be augmented by the prediction that the story of this case will strengthen political opposition to the new law.
Unless there is a technical definition of fatal abnormality somewhere else in law, it clearly makes room for medical judgment. I can’t think of a reason why the doctors would be afraid to say the fetus qualifies for abortion under this law, but I can think of a reason why abortion groups would want this woman to suffer a couple months before getting the abortion.
Short answer: No
they want negative publicity for the pro-life movement and DeSantis in particular.
Tere are people who would give anything they have just to be able to hold their baby before or while it passes.
I’m only interested in her Covid vaccines status. It’s the balloon in the room.
More poo from WAPoo
They don’t define viability, from what I can tell.
The law more than once makes a point of excluding "psychological" reasons. Only irreparable organ damage to the mother qualifies. A diagnosis of Potter Syndrome doesn't seem to meet the standard for abortion.
Also, identifying the father as Catholic is showing their bias. They're either sticking it to the Catholics (look what your patriarchal religion has wrought!), or counting him as some extralegal authority on the issue because he's Catholic.
Abortion doctors used to routinely abort babies with spina bifida.
Now they have surgeries to correct spina bifida in the womb.
Probably a good idea, under the Hippocratic Oath, to try to save human life.
"Viability" was always theoretical, never factual. No abortion clinic has a NICU. Only hospitals have a NICU. Abortion facilities routinely abort potentially viable babies, in my opinion.
The doctors may simply fear that the law will apply to them and choose to interpret it expansively to protect themselves rather than to do what they and the woman feel is best for her.
The doctors are pulling a political stunt. Sue them into pauperdom and the doctors will understand the true cost of putting politics above their patient.
Travel to another state and get the abortion. Problem solved.
The doctors are afraid because it could be construed that the fetus is currently viable in the womb, even though it would not be viable long term outside the womb.
Hospitals are different than abortion clinics.
Hospitals save lives. Abortion clinics rarely (very rarely) save lives.
Ginsburg once objected to the word "abortionist" as pejorative. Think about that shit for 10 seconds.
She wanted all the abortion docs to be called "obstetricians."
If "abortion" is pejorative you better come up with a happier, more Orwellian word to describe what's going on.
"I'm going to the clinic for a girl scout cookie!"
they want negative publicity for the pro-life movement and DeSantis in particular.
Nailed it, I think.
A lot of abortion litigation is a bait-and-switch.
You'd think abortion litigation is about pregnant women, right?
Wrong!
Except for Roe v. Wade itself, it's almost always the abortion clinics who are bringing litigation, not pregnant girls or women.
It's the abortion industry that is responsible for all the abortion cases, not pregnant women. And the abortion industry, like all industries, hates regulations.
It's fairly easy to re-frame Lochner v. New York as a case involving the (I'm making this up) "sacred right to bake bread."
How dare the government invade the sanctity of our kitchens!
(It's a commercial "right," in other words, as all abortions cost money and women have to pay to exercise the rights).
This seems a little too convenient. They're trying to write laws without legislation.
This is the fishing line that surrounds the neighborhood in Brooklyn. It allows the observant Jews to hide behind a wall, and ignore their convictions.
Sarah Silverman in the ambulance: "Ah! Ah! The pro-lifers got me! Phone assault! I couldn't hang up! Ah! Ah! I'm bleeding out! Someone help me!"
Ann Althouse, chasing the ambulance: "I'm coming, Sarah! I'm coming! We'll sue the bastards for millions! Slow down, you stupid ambulance."
I think RWNutjob is correct, this is all about generating pro-abortion propaganda and finding a way to smear DeSantis. Note that I think it's all on the doctors not the patient who was ill-served by people who were supposed to be helping her.
All these armchair experts, blaming the victim for the bad results of the policy they were so happy about.
I think most commentators here are happy the mother is suffering, based on how rarely she is brought into posts.
Did anyone think of coming to Illinois for an abortion? They love unlimited abortion here. Just ask Fatso Pritzker, our governor.
Bye-bye babies.
We're talking about a much darker thing, which is the pretext for this whole show, the worshiping of te Old Gods Baal and Moloch, and Ishtar (ht to Jonathan Cahn) the middle one of Child Sacrifice,
I'm not knowledgeable enough to pass an opinion, but this certainly looks like a political stunt.....Why does the slippery slope always end in coat hangers and never in China's One Child Policy? Abortion and eugenic enthusiasts have destroyed the lives of many women.
Why not seek an emergency Declaratory Judgment?
".I wonder... are the doctors interested in getting the chance to figure out how to treat the condition, which is Potter syndrome?..."
That depends, I guess. Are these particular doctors strongly pro-life? Or are they pro-choice, i.e. pro-abortion? And if the latter, could they be pulling a stunt for political points? If so, what kind of doctor would that make them?
Hard cases make bad law.
Dumb Lefty Mark continues earning his title.
Dumb Lefty Mark: "All these armchair experts, blaming the victim for the bad results of the policy they were so happy about."
There is zero blaming of the mother in this case. So it's difficult to tell if you are lying or you are simply even dumber than previously demonstrated.
There is much discussion as to whether or not the doctors really are befuddled or simply want to create a legal test case.
I would like to think that Dumb Lefty Mark is simply lying for political effect, but often times he really is that dumb as well.
Might as well flip a coin.
The travel to another state seems the simplest and least public alternative. I knew a couple who ran into a similar predicament and traveled out of state to obtain the abortion. Did not make the NYT or any other paper.
The law doesn’t say anything about protecting the mental health of the mother. The law only protects the physical health of the mother. In this case the physical health of the mother is not at risk. No abortion allowed.
As to the viability of the fetus, no one can guarantee what could happen that might change its fate. It’s like deciding to take someone off of life support in the case of a coma, etc., where you can’t know for sure the extent of brain damage, etc. The doctors can offer their best judgment but the family must make the final decision. The family can decide not to terminate and the child could survive and have to be maintained in a miserable state of suffering. It’s really not the best use of medical science.
A lack of medical conviction led to the doctors erring on the side of life.
Judging and labeling a baby conceived with first choice as a "burden" created an ethical conundrum that has enabled the performance of nearly 100 hundred million human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, or fair weather progress in America alone over half a century.
An underage rape victim visiting a sanctuary state to abort her "burden" of evidence created an ulterior motive and legal morass.
Sending a mother with a probable progressive medical condition home reopened the issue of single/central/monopolistic influence, death panels, etc.
Convicting with plausible cause the death of a man with a progressive condition ignited a liability review and nationwide insurrections, neighborhood invasions, protection rackets, etc.
Planned parent/hood in several Democrat districts, denying treatments, sponsoring shots/jabs with persistent, unknown, unknowable effects distribution to the general public has caste a dark shadow on medical competence.
It's the abortion industry that is responsible for all the abortion cases, not pregnant women. And the abortion industry, like all industries, hates regulations.
A viable, empathetic handmade tale is a terrible thing to waste.
Just an awful situation from every angle. What surprises me is the idea that a fetus can have a serious condition that causes them pain while still in the womb. Did not know that.
It seems like a clear-cut example of the allowance in the law to permit later-term abortions. We also know that the mother in question can go to another state.
But with no line drawn things become grotesque. An acquaintance of ours recently helped her friend through a second trimester elective abortion of a healthy 23-week-old baby boy in California. The mother (a thirty-something attorney separated from her husband; also mother to a three year old daughter) wanted the abortion because the baby is a boy. She fears, perhaps rightly so, that her husband will never stop harassing her after divorce if she bears him a son. I can't stop thinking about that innocent baby who had to die because he was male.
"A physician may not perform a termination of pregnancy if the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is more than 15 weeks unless one of the following conditions is met:
c. The fetus has not achieved viability under s. 390.01112 and two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality."
From the law's definitions:
“'Viable' or 'viability' means the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures."
It's not all that complicated. It leaves the determination of viability to the the professional judgement of two physicians.
Also, I saw nothing in the article which verified the woman's version of what her doctors told her. Maybe I missed it. They seem to be bloody monsters if her version is true.
Also, why didn't she try another set of doctors if this is so horrible?
"Even though medical experts expect their baby to survive only 20 minutes to a couple of hours...”
That’s plenty of time for the baby to be baptized so it can ascend to heaven instead of being trapped in limbo.
Yeah, lets get rid of the law because 1 or 2 people had doctors that did something stupid. Whatever.
" But [when] two doctors, three doctors say this is this, they should be able to terminate early to save the mental life of the mother.""
There is a life of the mother exemption, not a mental life of the mother exemption.
From what I am reading about the situation in this article...don't subscribe to WAPO... If I am reading correctly the baby is suffering due to lack of amniotic fluid? If the pregnancy is over 24 weeks why not do a c-section and let the baby die naturally in loving arms. What a tragedy but there is no love or compassion in abortion. Why is abortion even being considered...what am I missing?
How does the amnion protect the embryo?
The amnion forms a sac filled with amniotic fluid. The amniotic fluid acts as a buffer to protect the embryo from physical damage due to mechanical shock. The amniotic fluid also helps to prevent dehydration and desiccation by bathing the embryo. The amniotic fluid is released at birth when the amnion breaks.
=====
is this an absence of amnion/fluid aberration of the [ovum/sperm] implantation or mother's physiology?
Florida statutes:
"“Viable” or “viability” means the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures."
That seems pretty straightforward to me. This child's life will never be "sustainable". Abortion should be perfectly legal even in a late stage.
No telling why the consulted doctors decided to whiff...politics or lack of backbone?
Per Florida statute, "“Viable” or “viability” means the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures."
That seems pretty straightforward. The conditions as described would not produce or permit sustainable life.
Wonder why the consulting doctors are whiffing on this? Politics or perhaps lack of spinal fortitude, a fear of being criticized or second guessed?
Drago said...
Dumb Lefty Mark continues earning his title.
--
Absence of mention = blaming her.
Joementia approved.
'Medical Experts' are not GOD... you hear that?
So they 'expect'... duh.. and if they are wrong?
Hospitals are different than abortion clinics.
In principle, it's the difference between a non-profit and for-profit business, respectively. The conflation of elective, justified, and defensive abortions has been overlooked and suppressed with diverse motives.
Potter Syndrome
Potter syndrome is a rare condition that affects the growth and function of a baby’s kidneys and other internal organs. There are several causes for this condition, but symptoms arise because of too little amniotic fluid in the uterus. This condition is life-threatening for the baby and many infants have a short life expectancy.
Potter Syndrome
What causes too little amniotic fluid in the uterus?
Abnormal development of the kidneys causes too little amniotic fluid in the uterus.
...
What are the different types of Potter syndrome?
Providers identify different types of Potter syndrome based on symptoms that affect the kidneys including:
Classic Potter syndrome: Classic Potter syndrome is the most common and is the result of the baby being born without both kidneys.
Potter syndrome type I: Symptoms of type I occur because of polycystic kidney disease, where cysts form on the kidneys, caused by the trait passing from both parents (autosomal recessive).
Potter syndrome type II: Symptoms of type II are the result of kidney growth abnormalities that occur in the uterus during pregnancy.
Potter syndrome type III: Symptoms of type III occur because of polycystic kidney disease similar to type I, but caused by the trait being passed from only one parent (autosomal dominant).
Potter syndrome type IV: Symptoms of type IV are the result of a blockage of the urinary tract caused by abnormal fetal development in the uterus (obstructive uropathy).
IMO this is a political stunt by BOTH the mother AND the doctors. How would anyone know about this unless the mother/father went to the media? If the doctors went to the media they are in violation of HIPPA.
A trip from Florida to southern Illinois is 12 hours or so. Road trip!
Someone wants negative publicity to show how “evil” Florida’s law is. Is it the doctors? The parents could go to other doctors. In fact the parents could travel to another state and have an abortion. If this is so psychologically damaging to the mother why aren’t they doing that? I live near three speciality hospitals where they treat people who travel here from not only other states but from all over the world. It is only recently where you would assume you wouldn’t have to travel for many medical treatments.
That’s plenty of time for the baby to be baptized so it can ascend to heaven instead of being trapped in limbo.
No babies are "trapped in limbo"
what the fuck, man
Roselyn C
It’s like deciding to take someone off of life support in the case of a coma, etc., where you can’t know for sure the extent of brain damage,
Your point is more evidence that the Dr's are in on the PR stunt, in an attempt to change the law. You example proves that DR's are not shy about any perceived ambiguity. You are right, removing life support is a tough call. I've been involved twice. No one ever brought up the possibility of murder charges. Because there exists ample medical evidence to support the medical decision.
As compared to removing a 12 year old breasts....no medical necessity for that procedure, yet Dr's aren't even hesitating, before subjecting minors to such idiocy.
I have a friend who had a child born with a trisomy disorder. He did not live for very long, but his parents named him and he has a grave.
I also have a friend who had a child with a detectable problem in the womb. Her doctor (I presume to push a late term abortion) scared her with all sorts of issues that would happen because the doctors had to treat the born child and could not just let him die. There could be days and months of painful care. Her child was born, had a surgery, had another surgery 6 months later and has no real lasting issues.
So when doctors say an abortion is the only humane option. Yeah, I'm skeptical.
I have a friend who had a child born with a trisomy disorder. He did not live for very long, but his parents named him and he has a grave.
I also have a friend who had a child with a detectable problem in the womb. Her doctor (I presume to push a late term abortion) scared her with all sorts of issues that would happen because the doctors had to treat the born child and could not just let him die. There could be days and months of painful care. Her child was born, had a surgery, had another surgery 6 months later and has no real lasting issues.
So when doctors say an abortion is the only humane option. Yeah, I'm skeptical.
In addition to my comments above...So many comments about abortion pertaining to this case. Do people not understand the physical pain to the unborn during an abortion? I just don't understand.
That's wild Birches.
The perverse pressure put on that mom to give up on her baby is stunning.
Did she continue with that doctor?
Yes, because she didn't realize what was happening until after he was born. The doctor was very subtle. "I wish someone could help you, but after he's born, everyone's hands are tied." In these situations, doctors are very manipulative.
They will also do that regarding DNR in elderly, bemoaning the crippling crushing of CPR. Wasn't my Dad's experience.
If the doctors stopped abusing medical exceptions, women like this wouldn't be made to suffer.
We had to do a countrywide search to find one woman with an indisputable case against medically necessary late-term abortion.
Yes she suffered horribly. Yes, it was terrible.
Nobody is taking abortions away from the miniscule number of people suffering this way.
But, like euthanasia, the excuses and abuses snowball, and that's a hard-set fact.
My parents had a son, my brother, with an horrific disease that killed him young.
But he lived. He lived, he laughed, we shared. He endured. He was heroic. His last words to me, in extraordinary, utterly unimaginable suffering, was "don't stop the dialysis." I lack the words to describe how awful his life was. But it was life, Ann. We watched Monty Python and laughed.
I oppose abortion because life is hard. We invite the wrath of God and/or the loss of our humanity if we choose to throw it away. There is always hope, even a moment of it, that moment is priceless. There is grace. There is joy, even in the greatest of suffering.
We're the lucky ones.
Otherwise, we are not human. We're just a collection of bon mots, Scandinavian furniture, and nice pensions, right?
beautiful words, Tina
thank you
This is not an ethically difficult case.
The pro-abort ghouls and professional liars in their service are trying to make it seem like one. And the easily duped and useful idiots clap along. But this is not a difficult one.
You don’t kill a child.
If it just lives a few hours after birth, then make it the most loving few hours you possibly can, because that’s all the life she’ll get.
The mother’s life isn’t threatened. Even then, you don’t kill. Just let nature take its course. Induce labor or do a c section if need be. But you don’t kill the child to save the insurance company a rounding error.
“Mental life of the mother.”
What the f***k is this mealy-mouthed bullshit
“We had to do a countrywide search to find one woman with an indisputable case against medically necessary late-term abortion“
We still haven’t found a good case for “medically necessary late term abortion.” This case, as described, certainly isn’t one.
With today’s technology, I don’t think such a case exists, or will exist.
Post a Comment