Campaigns Gear Up for Tennessee Anti-Choice Amendment


Tennessee voters will decide in November 2014 whether to pass a constitutional amendment restricting access to abortion, and the anti-choice campaign in favor of the amendment is gearing up.

Amendment 1 would for the first time introduce language about abortion into the Tennessee Constitution, and would open the door to a greater number of restrictions on abortion, like those in Texas. While the language of the amendment passed the general assembly in 2010, it had to wait until 2014 for a vote because it was passed too late to go on the 2010 gubernatorial election ballot.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, stars of the reality television show 19 Kids and Counting, started campaigning for Amendment 1 at a Tennessee church Monday night. Jim Bob Duggar has come under fire for comparing the modern-day United States to the Holocaust. At a separate event Monday, Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey launched the “Yes on 1” campaign, which expected to raise over $250,000 at the kick-off event.

Lawmakers in Tennessee have, for the time being, dropped efforts to pass other abortion-restricting legislation in order to focus all their efforts on the amendment. Doing so also bolsters their claims that the amendment is the only way for Tennessee to regulate abortion.

“Their argument that they can’t pass restrictions on abortion is just not true,” Jeff Teague, president of Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, told RH Reality Check.

Anti-choice advocates have been pushing for an amendment like this since 2000, when the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion as part of her right to privacy. That ruling struck down numerous restrictions on abortion, although it upheld rules requiring minors to obtain parental consent. It also didn’t prevent Tennessee lawmakers from passing new hospital admitting requirements two years ago, which forced two abortion-providing facilities to close.

The text of the amendment reads:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

Anti-choice advocates argue that one-quarter of Tennessee abortions are sought by women from out of state, but Teague says that these numbers hardly indicate that Tennessee has lax abortion laws.

“It’s not because the laws are easier, it’s because it’s the most convenient place for them to come,” Teague said, noting that Tennessee clinics are closer to some women who live in neighboring states that have few clinics. Furthermore, many of those out-of-state residents are college students whose permanent address is not in Tennessee.

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union are preparing a campaign to fight the amendment. Their research shows that people are opposed to the amendment when they understand what it actually entails, Teague said.

“People in these organizations backing the amendment have openly said they think abortion should be illegal in this country,” Teague said. “For anybody to think that they want to pass restrictions that they think will protect women is ridiculous.”

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • RitaJoseph

    Just a reminder here. Every abortion involves an act of violence. There is no excuse for the “choice” to use lethal violence against any child being nurtured and protected in his/her mother’s womb.

    Violence against children is never ‘necessary’. All violence against children is preventable.

    Before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.

    Their mothers’ personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.

    • Jennifer Starr

      All children have been born. A zygote, embryo or fetus is not the same as a born child. And by giving rights to a fetus you are taking rights from the born, sentient woman, reducing her to the status of an incubator. You want to talk violence? Forced pregnancy and birth are pretty damn violent.

      • Ella Warnock

        Oh, I was under the impression that pregnancy and childbirth are merely “inconveniences.” That’s what the anti-choicers tell me, and surely they’d never lie. Would they?

        • Jennifer Starr

          I once recall a woman who told me that the fetus required nothing at all from the woman other than to be allowed to grow in the uterus and that pregnancy/birth was the easiest and most natural thing in the world, blah, blah blah. Somehow I don’t think that reality was where this woman was residing.

          • Ella Warnock

            They’re wont to say “If an embryo is left ALONE, it will grow.” No, if it were actually left alone, it would wither on the vine, so to speak. Which is exactly what happens when a zygote fails to implant and is flushed out with a menstrual period. Carrying a pregnancy to term is anything BUT “leaving it alone.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            Very true. Even a pregnancy that is relatively uncomplicated demands a hell of a lot on the part of the woman. And yet they don’t think she should be able to make decisions regarding that pregnancy. Just unbelievable.

          • CJ99

            I guess she had never been pregnant. Even a childless man like me knows the umilical cord is there for a reason.

            or in more succinct terms: DUH! (no snark aimed at you Jennifer)

        • CJ99

          They don’t see the difference between being forced and genuinely wanting a child. Nor do they pretend to understand the consequences of medical problems that can arise.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, if it really does boil down to just an “inconvenience,” then having an abortion shouldn’t be an issue, should it? (Not putting you on the hot seat, CJ99, just thinking out loud). If pregnancy and childbirth have such a negligible effect on women’s bodies and health, then an abortion is that much more inconsequential, no?

          • fiona64

            Back in the days of the AOL abortion debate board, I distinctly recall an anti-choicer telling a rape victim who had terminated a pregnancy that if she’d just “held that precious baby in her arms, she would have forgotten all about being raped.” They just think that, through some magical osmosis, women will be thrilled and delighted to be pregnant 100 percent of the time.

            Which obviously explains why post-partum depression, post-partum psychosis and child abuse don’t exist.

            Oh, wait.

          • colleen

            If you believe women aren’t entitled to freedom of conscience or religion but, rather, a national resource to be farmed and controlled, then those distinctions don’t matter. They don’t care about your opinions, your goals or your needs. You’re no more worthy of respect or life than a domestic animal and this is particularly true if you are poor.

    • fiona64

      Children are born entities; embryos are not “children.”

      You would abrogate the rights of a woman in order to afford “rights” to an embryo, and you want to talk about right v. wrong? Really?

      Do you know what it’s called when you curtail someone’s freedom?

      Enslavement.

      You advocate slavery: nothing more, nothing less. Congratulations.

      • RitaJoseph

        Fiona, it is abortionists who reduce the child before birth to an object, a ‘choice’, a thing of less-than-human status, suspended in a slave-like state between life and death, pending an arbitrary decision by the “owner” to abort or to keep the child.
        Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights codifies Article 4 of the Universal Declaration and explicitly prohibits slavery “in all its forms”. It is difficult to construe the condition or status of the child at risk of abortion as anything but a form of slavery, in which the concepts of ‘ownership’ and ‘absolute power’ over a dependant are used to violate human dignity and rights.

        To accord mothers the “right” to abort their children is to allow them the most pernicious of all the powers attaching to the alleged rights of ownership and domination—powers of life and death. The pseudo-right to abortion stands in direct contradiction to the long, hard-won tradition of human rights and freedoms, a tradition forbidding that any one human being should have ownership and disposal rights over any other human being, no matter how small or dependent or troublesome or unwanted.

        • fiona64

          I’m sorry that simple English appears to be beyond you. A zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a person. It has no rights. Women (I know this will come as a shock to you) are *persons* — which means they have rights.

          You are advocating slavery because you advocate abrogating the rights of a PERSON.

          I’m sorry that you fail to understand simple legalities like personhood. Perhaps a refresher course in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (which is pretty clear that rights are afforded to those who are BORN) would help. I’ll even give you a link so that you don’t strain yourself looking it up. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

          I’m happy to help rectify this unfortunate gap in your education.

          PS: You might want to pay particular attention to the subsection on personal autonomy. Women have the right to self-determination and bodily autonomy … no matter how much that happens to gall you.

          • RitaJoseph

            Fiona, in the international human rights instruments, there are no such terms as ‘foetal rights’ or ‘person rights’. There are only human rights.

            In the formal legal language of founding international human rights instruments: “‘person’ means every human being”.

            The State has no authority to divide the human race into ‘persons’ and ‘non-persons’, while deeming the privileged group only to be worthy of human rights protection.

            Right from the first drafting of the International Bill of Rights, the legal language of human rights consistently used the terms “unborn children” and “the child before as well as after birth”. It is not valid to replace these terms with medical nomenclature “the foetus” and then claim that “the foetus” has no right to legal protection under human rights law.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What she’s talking about is the US Constitution, which is what we’re governed by here in the US. The fourteenth amendment affords rights to all born citizens. To give personhood and rights to a non-sentient zygote, embryo and fetus is to strip rights from the woman who is pregnant.

          • RitaJoseph

            Article VI (2) of the US Constitution: “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

            Right from the first drafting of the Universal Declaration principles, through all the drafting sessions of all the human rights conventions that codified these principles in modern international human rights law, the US lawyers on the US delegation to the UN have been fully (and I would say from a careful reading of the travaux préparatoires dominantly) engaged in negotiation of the agreed texts. These are not principles arbitrarily imposed on the US (including the US Supreme Court) but principles negotiated and drafted and freely agreed by successive US delegations with full authority of US governments and citizens to do so.

            I understand that under US domestic law, treaties – like statutes – must meet the requirements of the Constitution; no treaty provision may have force of law in the United States if it conflicts with the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

            But vice versa I would understand also that all the treaty provisions must have met the requirements of the US Constitution since (1) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights( ICCPR) was ratified by US 8th June 1992; and (2)no reservations to the effect of excluding a child before birth from legal protections on the grounds that such protections conflicted with the US Constitution, were lodged either by the competent US delegation’s lawyers at the UN who drafted the provisions of these treaties before the US became a signatory to them, or by the US government lawyers who examined these treaties before they were ratified.

            There was no reservation to the ICCPR, Article 6 (1) “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”. There was certainly no reservation to the effect that the US Constitution precludes legal protection and legal recognition as human beings of unborn children at risk of lethal treatment. Indeed, one of the reservations to Article 6 (5) that were made by the US formally excepted “a pregnant woman” (and implicitly her unborn child) from capital punishment.

            The unborn child’s right to life is protected under Article 6(5). The travaux preparatoires (explanatory notes written at the time the Covenant was negotiated) stated this explicitly: “The principal reason for providing in paragraph 4 [now Article 6(5)] of the original text that the death sentence should not be carried out on pregnant women was to save the life of an unborn child.” This Article, prohibiting execution of pregnant women, acknowledges that the child, from the State’s first knowledge of that child’s existence, is to be protected.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t know where you live, but abortion is legal in the United States. And I believe it should stay that way, regardless of the anti-choice nutcases.

          • RitaJoseph

            Not so long ago slavery was “legal” in the United States.

            The US Supreme Court, in its 1857 Dred Scott decision, declared slaves were not persons. That decision was found to be unconstitutional.

            The Constitution says:
            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…We the People of the United States, in Order to…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

            “Posterity” which literally means “descendants” or all succeeding generations, refers, in the context of the US Constitution, to all those Americans yet unborn, to all of the offspring of American progenitors.
            Is the child at risk of abortion part of America’s posterity? Genealogically, an unborn child at risk of abortion is already in existence in a definite place (her mother’s womb) locatable in the United States in a US jurisdiction, measureable with ultrasound–we can hear her heartbeat, see her shape, form, size, detect her lively movements—live but not born.

            Is your daughter being nurtured and protected in you womb your posterity? Yes. Is she born yet? No. Does the fact that she is not yet born make her any less your posterity? No.
            Her life, already begun in the womb, is an “unalienable right”, which means neither men nor women can take it away through laws or through Court decisions.

            Where is 14th Amendment “due process” for those unborn children deliberately consigned to death while still in the womb?
            Pro-abortion legislators and judges cannot swear with logic or sincerity to uphold the rights of the people “and their posterity” while denying legal protection to children at risk of abortion. The drafters of the Constitution were very clear about the necessity for inter-generational justice—good outcomes for one generation of Americans was never to be achieved at the expense of the rights of their unborn children.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The Constitution says:The Constitution says:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

            Actually, no, that’s not the Constitution. That’s the Declaration of Independence. And the second part is an incomplete copy/paste of the Preamble to the Constitution. The fact that you copied and pasted this from World Nutjob Daily and from Joseph “Pornstar Mustache” Farah, one of the most loathsome excuses for a ‘journalist’ current crawling on this planet, does not exactly gain you respect. I’m not even going to mention the fact that you didn’t credit your source, which is plagiarism. And you want to talk slavery, honey? Forced pregnancy and birth IS slavery. Because when you give full rights to a fetus you are taking them away from the born woman.

          • RitaJoseph

            I’m so sorry for my muddling the Constitution/Declaration texts–it was unacceptably careless, a far too hasty attempt to concertina a whole chunk of work into a short paragraph. I stand corrected.

            The Joseph Farrer reference escapes me–I can’t remember reading any of his work. The textual analysis of the term “posterity” is my own–I worked on that text many years ago from dictionary definitions and from the original understanding of the term as it was used at the time it was drafted.

            With regard to the term “forced pregnancy” , this term is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002) and bears no relation to the natural and normal(unforced) course of pregnancy resulting in birth of the child.

            Under Article 8 entitled Crimes Against Humanity, it is defined as follows:
            “‘Forced pregnancy’ means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy.”(2 f)

            Your final argument is interesting because it echoes Justice Taney’s Dred Scott decision in which he intimated that in giving full rights to slaves you would be taking “property” rights away from the slave owners.

            The universal human rights principle of indivisibility requires that
            legal protection of the rights of one set of human beings cannot be sacrificed to enhance the rights of another set. The life of the child at risk of abortion is not to be sacrificed to promote, for example, women’s rights. The lives of both the mother and her unborn child are to be protected with equal vigilance.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Don’t be disingenuous. Either you’ve read his work or he’s read yours somewhere, but someone has plagiarized here. From http://www dot wnd dot com/2008/03/59934/ :’ “Posterity,” which literally means “descendants” or all succeeding generations, refers, in this context, to all those Americans yet unborn.

            Is your great, great, great, great granddaughter your posterity? Absolutely. Is she born yet? Absolutely not. Does the fact that she is not yet born make her any less your posterity? No.”‘

            As for what Roman Law says, quite frankly, Rita, I don’t give a flying fuck. I am American, not Italian, not European, and not ruled by Rome, nor am I ruled by a group of celibate pedophile-enabling old men wearing dresses. And guess what? We’re also not ruled in this country by non-binding, non-enforceable UN Resolutions. So don’t take this the wrong way when I tell you to piss off.

          • goatini

            How ironic to read your screeching about “slavery”, since you are an advocate of gestational slavery, and an advocate of stripping female US citizens of their civil, human and Constitutional rights as set forth in the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Rights accrue to citizens AT BIRTH.

          • Jennifer Starr

            From what I can see, Ms. Joseph goes around trying to intimidate people with large chunks of text, probably from that book of hers–along with stuff that’s copied from World Nut Daily. And then afterwards she repeatedly screeches “I’m right! I’m right!” at anyone who challenges her obvious BS.

          • fiona64

            OMG. I just looked up her book. I fully concur with the reviewer who referred to it as misogynistic drivel.

          • CJ99

            Perhaps we could come up with another name for such people other than nuts? silly I know but a peanut or macadamia makes more sense than most those we label as nuts.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well the publication is World ‘Net’ Daily, hence the Nut reference, but yes, you make an excellent point :) A peanut or macadamia makes a whole lot more sense than these people do.

          • CJ99

            That’s troll doesn’t get and doesn’t want to either. That being life starts at birth not before. Until then the unborn is still part of the mother.

          • fiona64

            Hey, dumbass: The Constitution does not say any of that. That’s the Declaration of Independence which, quite notably, is NOT the basis for law in this country.

            Also, quite notably, abortion was *legal* during the time that the DoI and the Constitution were written.

            Bye-bye now, little troll.

          • colleen

            I think she is arguing that the State has no authority to determine what constitutes ‘person-hood’ except to support the religious beliefs of fundamentalist Christians. I’m really amused she’s using the US Constitution to support her argument.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You realize that your sad excuse for a legal argument in your ‘book’ has been debunked several times, most notably by Tania Penovic, from the Castan Centre for Human Rights, said that your interpretation was “not apparent from its wording and not supported by the Human Rights Committee’s findings and conclusions.” Also from Elizabeth O’Shea’s editorial “The Public Prosecution of Private Decisions” : ‘Far from recognising the rights of the unborn, the drafters of the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually rejected proposals to extend international law in this manner. As such, “the jurisprudence of international human rights law has not followed an approach of subordinating the rights of pregnant women in favour of their unborn children”. Joseph’s interpretation was in fact “contrary to the wording and jurisprudence of other key international human rights treaties which, like the ICCPR, operate to uphold the right of women to control their own fertility and thereby enjoy a range of human rights”.’ A full version may be read at: http://lawgovpol dot com/database/the-public-prosecution-of-private-decisions/

          • RitaJoseph

            Jennifer, please try not to let ideology trump the facts which are as follows:

            In 1947-8, when Eleanor Roosevelt, on behalf of the United States, negotiated the text of the Universal Declaration, one of the first things agreed was that the “innocent unborn child” was to be legally protected.

            In the drafting of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the only recorded attempt to introduce abortion as an exception to the right to life occurred in the Working Group’s 2nd Session (1947). It was put to a vote in the Commission on Human Rights and was resoundingly defeated. A principle was adopted in which the only exception to the unlawfulness of deprivation of a life was to be in the execution of the sentence of a court following on conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.

            The ICCPR drafting history records repeatedly and irrevocably that protection of the law is to be “extended to all unborn children” (See 5th Session (1949), 6th Session (1950), 8th Session (1952) and 12th Session (1957) of the UN Commission on Human Rights).

            On November 20th, 1959, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed specifically and definitively that the Universal Declaration “recognized” the child’s need, “by reason of his physical and mental immaturity”, for special safeguards and care, including “legal protection before as well as after birth”.(UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child). This was affirmed again in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).

          • Jennifer Starr

            I didn’t post ideology. I did post facts. You have posted nothing but ideology. And the fact is that the selectively handpicked quotes and drivel you post from your poor excuse for a book–they’ve been discredited so many times it isn’t even funny.

          • fiona64

            please try not to let ideology trump the facts

            Take your own advice, pookie …

          • L-dan

            Thank you for the research to clear that bit of propaganda up.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens AT BIRTH.

          • fiona64

            So, you missed a few days of civics class then.

            And, apparently, couldn’t be bothered to read what I presented to you.

            Your deliberate ignorance is no one’s fault but your own, and it reflects poorly upon you.

          • CJ99

            With your gigantic leaps of illogic you’d force all women who are pregnant with children who suffer from some genetic anomaly, disability or disease to not only suffer through the pregnancy knowing that once born the child won’t be able to have much of a life but forcing the child to live a life of suffering for which they invariably will have no cure or hope. Are you helping those who were born with disabilities and helping any of them?

            No I thought not.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, do read the Constitution. NOWHERE does it define what a child IS. And that’s a CANADIAN telling you that.

          • colleen

            The State has no authority to divide the human race into ‘persons’ and
            ‘non-persons’, while deeming the privileged group only to be worthy of
            human rights protection.

            The State has every right and responsibility to do so. The notion that a fertilized ova is a ‘person’ is absurd. The institutions which do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others are religious institutions.

            Women have freedom of religion and conscience also. The LAST thing any sane, self respecting women would do with those freedoms is embrace fundamentalist Christianity. The state is what protects people like us from people like you.

          • dance commander

            A fetus isn’t a human being, cupcake.

        • Jennifer Starr

          You seem to overlook the fact that the fetus is inside the body of a woman, and directly affecting her life and health in a variety of ways, some of them quite serious. Anyone can care for a baby once it is born, but only one person can be pregnant. Therefore, decisions about the pregnancy should be made by the woman who is pregnant, her doctor, and whomever else she wishes to include. The decision should not be made by ‘pro-lifers’, politicians, and certainly not by any church official.

          • Ella Warnock

            They’re not overlooking that at all. Any woman who opts out of the childbearing burden, by whatever means, is highly suspect in their estimation. We, like Eve, are rebelling against our true natures; and we should be treated as the Enemy, and as servants of the One True Enemy.

            There are atheists who are anti-choice, but the ideation described above is what drives this train. Simply put, women need to be
            protected from themselves, and everyone else needs to be protected from women.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Very true. Excellent point.

        • Ella Warnock

          They’re not overlooking that at all. Any woman who opts out of the childbearing burden, by whatever means, is highly suspect in their estimation. We, like Eve, are rebelling against our true natures; and we should be treated as the Enemy, and as servants of the One True Enemy.

          Yes, there are atheists who are anti-choice, but the ideation described above is what drives this train. Simply put, women need to be protected from themselves, and everyone else needs to be protected from women.

        • goatini

          Says a forced-birther who advocates for violating the human dignity; and the civil, human and Constitutional rights, of female US citizens. Female US citizens are NOT livestock.

        • CJ99

          You advocate slavery as an argument against slavery. Your hipocrisy and flat out stupidity is horrific.

        • colleen

          You reduce the social status of women to that of breeding livestock and then complain about slavery when a woman does not want to emulate Michelle Duggar. That’s some God you worship.

    • lady_black

      Frankly, sweetie… you have no idea what you’re talking about. OF COURSE abortions are sometimes necessary! Ectopic pregnancies for example. There is no way to treat an ectopic pregnancy, other than ending the pregnancy. It’s a life-threatening condition. Other conditions too numerous to list here require treatment by ending the pregnancy. A few are pre-eclampsia, septic pregnancy and placental abruption. An embryo or fetus is simply not equal in value to the life of an adult woman, no matter how much you may believe that it is. My own mother would have died without a D&C. She was only 11 weeks pregnant, and there was no “child,” nor would there ever have BEEN a “child.” Only two motherless children and a dead woman. Next time you post here, try to have a clue what you’re posting about. Apparently what you know about pregnancy could be engraved on the head of a pin.

      • RitaJoseph

        An intentional lethal attack on an unborn child is never justified.

        This is not to be confused with the inadvertent loss of the child’s life in the course of treatment genuinely necessary to save the life of a mother. For example, if the mother’s uterus is cancerous, then removal of the uterus is not an abortion but a legitimate life-saving procedure. Similarly with the removal of part of the mother’s fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy. In neither case is it ‘necessary’ to first attack and directly kill her tiny child.

        It is either naivety or mendacity that has led pro-abortion advocates to confuse direct abortion with genuine life-saving treatment.

        States have a duty to scrutinize all decisions concerning children at risk of abortion and to assess objectively the common law defences of necessity and proportionality in relation to such decisions. This has devastating logical implications for the rhetoric of “choice”. Subjective choice is never sufficient basis for the taking of a human life.

        Genuine medicine does no deliberate harm to either patient, to the mother or her unborn baby.

        Many claims today that the only way to save a mother’s life is to directly attack the child being nurtured and protected in his/her mother’s womb are unable to be substantiated.

        Increasingly, such grounds are being recognized to have little medical validity in view of rapid advances in obstetrics, in fetal medicine, in holistic pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers and their babies. The rational response to life-threatening pregnancy these days is to provide positive health care delivery including competent, compassionate and comprehensive prenatal and post-natal care for distressed mothers and their babies.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Removing the fallopian tube is unnecessary. A woman should not have to sacrifice her future fertility just to satisfy someone’s archaic notion of ‘double effect’. Savita died in Ireland because they valued the life of a non-viable fetus over her life.

          • RitaJoseph

            According to the Watchdog the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa) Report, 9th October 2013, Savita died because doctors failed to recognise that she was suffering from an infection and failed to act on signs that she was deteriorating.

            The Report identified some 13 missed opportunities to intervene in her care which, if they had been acted upon, may have resulted in a different outcome.
            Among the listed failures were:

            *General lack of provision of basic, fundamental care, for example, not following up on blood tests as identified in Savita’s case.

            * Failure to provide regular monitoring and recording of a patient’s clinical observations
            *Failure to provide seamless clinical handover of information relating to each patient within and between clinicians and clinical teams;

            *Failure to recognise that Savita was at risk of clinical deterioration.

            *Failure to act or escalate concerns to an appropriately qualified clinician when Savita was showing signs of clinical deterioration.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They failed to remove the source of infection which was a fetus that was being miscarried and was too young to be viable outside the womb. There was only one life which could be saved and they failed to do even that. Now I know that several ‘pro-lifers’ had said that removal of the uterus would have been acceptable under the archaic ‘double effect’ doctrine, which would have been unbelievably cruel as it would have punished her for the sin of not being able to carry a pregnancy by depriving her of the ability to ever have another child. How very ‘pro-life’.

          • fiona64

            She is kind of deliberately obtuse, isn’t she?

            Savita Halapannavar died because some anti-choice doctor in a Catholic country could still hear a fetal heart tone and didn’t care that the pregnant woman was going septic. Period.

          • Ella Warnock

            And none of them will ever answer my question – why? What is it, specifically, about the “culture of life” that made this situation possible? Oh, they provide a lot of texts and cites and whatnot, but that’s not a question that can be answered by copypasting. You’ve got to THINK about that one. And perhaps to think somewhat uncomfortable thoughts.

          • Arekushieru

            E-fucking-xactly! What Pro-’Lifers’ never (deliberately?) fail to misunderstand, is that they are setting up a double punishment effect. A woman’s uterus sustains and supports life, therefore it is good and ‘right’ to deny a woman her right to bodily autonomy. If a woman’s uterus isn’t functioning ‘properly’, it is therefore good and ‘right’ to deny a woman her right to medical privacy. Either way, a woman’s worth is based on the functioning of her uterus, and she must be punished by deprivation of whatever right allows her control over that organ. Which is fucking sexist, because MEN DON’T HAVE THAT ORGAN. Oi. Antis need to GROW UP and use fucking logic once in awhile.

          • Ella Warnock

            The more important question is “what” motivated this cascade of failures. “Why” was such poor care given to both patients? “Why” weren’t all these medical professionals – in a prolife country – focusing on making sure the fetus had every chance to survive? I would have thought that a system so dedicated to life would have been paying far closer attention to . . . a pregnant woman. Something doesn’t quite add up here, I’m afraid.

          • colleen

            She died because she had the great misfortune to give birth in a Catholic country and the Catholic church demands all women comply with their doctrine and need for human sacrifice. All you do is list the long painful results of Catholic dogma when it’s applied to a particular type of pregnancy. This is the inevitable results of allowing conservative Catholics to express their ‘conscience’ in a medical setting. Notice how it’s always women and usually non-Catholic women who die as a result?

          • lady_black

            I’m sorry, but there was going to be no “different outcome.” The doctors knew this pregnancy was lost, and more importantly, Savita knew it. You attempt to paint her as some fool who isn’t aware of what’s going on (and who might actually listen to a word you have to say). In fact, she was a dentist. An educated health care professional who was fully aware of what was going on in her body. As she laid there, screaming in pain, and begging for her life, she was ignored in favor of a DOOMED 17 week fetus. She begged for the help she needed to end the pregnancy that was killing her, and was coldly informed that she didn’t matter because she was in “a Catholic country.” By the time they got around to accepting the fact that the ‘holy fetus’ was dead, it was too late for her. This should never happen to any woman. EVER. This is what happens when superstition is permitted to infect science, literally.

        • goatini

          There is no such thing as an “unborn child”. Do you refer to yourself as an “undead corpse”?

          • CJ99

            when you consider how these fanatics don’t think for themselves then the word zombie is quite fitting.

        • lady_black

          Now, why on EARTH would a woman need surgery to remove her fallopian tube, when simply taking methotrexate will preserve both her life and her fertility? Because you say so? I don’t THINK so. Your view of obstetrics is decades behind the standards. Try to keep up.

        • CJ99

          It’s a shame you wasted your wicked medical skills when you decided to be a lifeless fanatic spewing other peoples nonsense.

          Yeah its called sarcasm, have someone look it up for you.

        • Ella Warnock

          “then removal of the uterus is not an abortion but a legitimate
          life-saving procedure. Similarly with the removal of part of the
          mother’s fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy.”

          Ah, yes, let’s delve a little deeper into this subject, shall we? Mutilating a woman’s body is the preferable means of ending an nonviable pregnancy, yes? Removing the uterus or fallopian tube from a woman who would like to have future children is the proper course of action, rather than just “directly” ending the pregnancy and preserving her fertility. Correct?

          Now, not to put to fine a point on it but . . . antis are always telling me that they’re FOR women’s reproductive choices, most especially they’re FOR women having all the children god sees fit to send them. They’re FOR women conceiving and carrying and delivering children. This unnecessary mutilation would seem to put the lie to that notion. Should the “life” of a nonviable fetus come at the cost of a woman’s future fertility? It seems that the message is somewhat, well, confusing.

        • Arekushieru

          Medicine, specifically, refers to the return of one to their former state of health, or as near as possible. If you refuse to call abortion healthcare or medicine, then neither is pregnancy care nor childbirth. Oops.

          I am not pro-abortion, because I am not part of a movement that advocates for forced abortion. So, who’s lying, now, sweetie?

          Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The fact that the fetus dies due to separation from the uterus is not the woman’s responsibility. So, neither is abortion an ‘attack’ on and (directly) killing the fetus. DERP.

          Besides, what you described IS an abortion. Kthx.

        • dance commander

          Yes, it is justified.

          Pregnancy kills and maims, you ignorant asshat:

          Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

          exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

          altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

          nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)

          heartburn and indigestion

          constipation

          weight gain

          dizziness and light-headedness

          bloating, swelling, fluid retention

          hemmorhoids

          abdominal cramps

          yeast infections

          congested, bloody nose

          acne and mild skin disorders

          skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

          mild to severe backache and strain

          increased headaches

          difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

          increased urination and incontinence

          bleeding gums

          pica

          breast pain and discharge

          swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

          difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

          inability to take regular medications

          shortness of breath

          higher blood pressure

          hair loss

          tendency to anemia

          curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

          infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

          (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women,
          and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

          extreme pain on delivery

          hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

          continued
          post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section —
          major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
          fully recover)

          Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

          stretch marks (worse in younger women)

          loose skin

          permanent weight gain or redistribution

          abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

          pelvic
          floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former
          child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with
          urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life —
          aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the
          transvaginal mesh)

          changes to breasts

          varicose veins

          scarring from episiotomy or c-section

          other
          permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by
          women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

          increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

          loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

          higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

          newer
          research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges
          of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother
          (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

          Occasional complications and side effects:

          complications of episiotomy

          spousal/partner abuse

          hyperemesis gravidarum

          temporary and permanent injury to back

          severe scarring requiring later surgery

          (especially after additional pregnancies)

          dropped
          (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
          pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
          and enterocele)

          pre-eclampsia
          (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy,
          associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

          eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

          gestational diabetes

          placenta previa

          anemia (which can be life-threatening)

          thrombocytopenic purpura

          severe cramping

          embolism (blood clots)

          medical
          disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
          many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
          or baby)

          diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

          mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

          serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

          hormonal imbalance

          ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

          broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)

          hemorrhage and

          numerous other complications of delivery

          refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

          aggravation
          of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in
          .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and
          treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency
          of seizures)

          severe post-partum depression and psychosis

          research
          now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female
          fertility treatments, including “egg harvesting” from infertile women
          and donors

          research
          also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival
          rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

          research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

          Less common (but serious) complications:

          peripartum cardiomyopathy

          cardiopulmonary arrest

          magnesium toxicity

          severe hypoxemia/acidosis

          massive embolism

          increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

          molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease

          (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

          malignant arrhythmia

          circulatory collapse

          placental abruption

          obstetric fistula

          More permanent side effects:

          future infertility

          permanent disability

          death.

        • dance commander

          Yes, it is justified.

          Pregnancy kills and maims, you ignorant asshat:

          Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

          exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

          altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

          nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)

          heartburn and indigestion

          constipation

          weight gain

          dizziness and light-headedness

          bloating, swelling, fluid retention

          hemmorhoids

          abdominal cramps

          yeast infections

          congested, bloody nose

          acne and mild skin disorders

          skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

          mild to severe backache and strain

          increased headaches

          difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

          increased urination and incontinence

          bleeding gums

          pica

          breast pain and discharge

          swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

          difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

          inability to take regular medications

          shortness of breath

          higher blood pressure

          hair loss

          tendency to anemia

          curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

          infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

          (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women,
          and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

          extreme pain on delivery

          hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

          continued
          post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section —
          major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
          fully recover)

          Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

          stretch marks (worse in younger women)

          loose skin

          permanent weight gain or redistribution

          abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

          pelvic
          floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former
          child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with
          urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life —
          aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the
          transvaginal mesh)

          changes to breasts

          varicose veins

          scarring from episiotomy or c-section

          other
          permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by
          women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

          increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

          loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

          higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

          newer
          research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges
          of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother
          (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

          Occasional complications and side effects:

          complications of episiotomy

          spousal/partner abuse

          hyperemesis gravidarum

          temporary and permanent injury to back

          severe scarring requiring later surgery

          (especially after additional pregnancies)

          dropped
          (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
          pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
          and enterocele)

          pre-eclampsia
          (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy,
          associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

          eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

          gestational diabetes

          placenta previa

          anemia (which can be life-threatening)

          thrombocytopenic purpura

          severe cramping

          embolism (blood clots)

          medical
          disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
          many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
          or baby)

          diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

          mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

          serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

          hormonal imbalance

          ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

          broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)

          hemorrhage and

          numerous other complications of delivery

          refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

          aggravation
          of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in
          .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and
          treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency
          of seizures)

          severe post-partum depression and psychosis

          research
          now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female
          fertility treatments, including “egg harvesting” from infertile women
          and donors

          research
          also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival
          rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

          research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

          Less common (but serious) complications:

          peripartum cardiomyopathy

          cardiopulmonary arrest

          magnesium toxicity

          severe hypoxemia/acidosis

          massive embolism

          increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

          molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease

          (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

          malignant arrhythmia

          circulatory collapse

          placental abruption

          obstetric fistula

          More permanent side effects:

          future infertility

          permanent disability

          death.

    • goatini

      All children, ever, have already been born.

    • CJ99

      control and manipulation of women’s or anyones rights is violence. And frankly your inept diatribe is part of your own ignorance. These children are far more often than not completely ignored after birth. I know its real, I’ve lived through it. I’ve come from a situation where I could’ve been aborted but wasn’t. Instead I grew up surrounded by religious zombies like you who on their best day ignored me. but more often I was mistreated in varying ways for having the temerity to want to live my own life instead of letting myself be lied to, manipulated & controlled in everything.

    • colleen

      Their mothers’ personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.

      You might want to run that by the fundie ‘pro-life’ community of right wing assholes. They don’t even support an adequate diet or healthcare for low income children, much less ‘mothers’.
      Please stop spouting that stuff here in another frantic effort to be accepted. Oh, and go learn the menaing of ‘non-violent’. It is not ‘non-violent’ to inflict your religious beliefs on others and particularly when you impose or try to impose those belief as a matter of law. It is not ‘non-violent’ to pretend that women aren’t entitled to freedom of religion and conscience. And it CERTAINLY is not non-violent to impose your poor excuse for a religion on women when you are fully and abundantly aware that we aren’t doing anywhere near an adequate job of caring for the children we have that are already born. Instead what we get is a tiny insincere and sentence that we KNOW yiou do not believe because we’ve just watched every ‘pro-life’ politician in the country fight tooth and nail to make sure that those women AND THEIR CHILDREN won’t have healthcare or enough to eat.And not one fucking squeek out of the religious right. not one.
      There is no movement more violent and personally offensive than the anti-choice movement.

      • fiona64

        I guarantee she thinks that Scott Roeder and Eric Rudolph were “non-violent” … because it’s so pro-life to murder born, sapient, sentient persons.

    • Arekushieru

      So, do you tell rape victims that? If not, you’re a hypocrite, and if you do, you are just fucking sick. Sorry, but there is NO way you can ‘win’ this one.

      Fetuses receive the same protections as you or I WITH abortion being legal.

    • Amanda Kazarian

      And how do you intend to meet the needs of the pregnant woman without violence? Forced childbirth seems like it could get pretty violent.

    • dance commander

      A zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t a chlid.

      And you want to talk about a violence? This is what that ‘child’ does to a woman:

      Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

      exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

      altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

      nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)

      heartburn and indigestion

      constipation

      weight gain

      dizziness and light-headedness

      bloating, swelling, fluid retention

      hemmorhoids

      abdominal cramps

      yeast infections

      congested, bloody nose

      acne and mild skin disorders

      skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

      mild to severe backache and strain

      increased headaches

      difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

      increased urination and incontinence

      bleeding gums

      pica

      breast pain and discharge

      swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

      difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

      inability to take regular medications

      shortness of breath

      higher blood pressure

      hair loss

      tendency to anemia

      curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

      infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women,
      and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

      extreme pain on delivery

      hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

      continued
      post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section —
      major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
      fully recover)

      Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

      stretch marks (worse in younger women)

      loose skin

      permanent weight gain or redistribution

      abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

      pelvic
      floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former
      child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with
      urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life —
      aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the
      transvaginal mesh)

      changes to breasts

      varicose veins

      scarring from episiotomy or c-section

      other
      permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by
      women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

      increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

      loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

      higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

      newer
      research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges
      of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother
      (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

      Occasional complications and side effects:

      complications of episiotomy

      spousal/partner abuse

      hyperemesis gravidarum

      temporary and permanent injury to back

      severe scarring requiring later surgery

      (especially after additional pregnancies)

      dropped
      (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
      pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
      and enterocele)

      pre-eclampsia
      (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy,
      associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

      eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

      gestational diabetes

      placenta previa

      anemia (which can be life-threatening)

      thrombocytopenic purpura

      severe cramping

      embolism (blood clots)

      medical
      disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
      many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
      or baby)

      diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

      mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

      serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

      hormonal imbalance

      ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

      broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)

      hemorrhage and

      numerous other complications of delivery

      refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

      aggravation
      of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in
      .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and
      treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency
      of seizures)

      severe post-partum depression and psychosis

      research
      now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female
      fertility treatments, including “egg harvesting” from infertile women
      and donors

      research
      also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival
      rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

      research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

      Less common (but serious) complications:

      peripartum cardiomyopathy

      cardiopulmonary arrest

      magnesium toxicity

      severe hypoxemia/acidosis

      massive embolism

      increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

      molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease

      (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

      malignant arrhythmia

      circulatory collapse

      placental abruption

      obstetric fistula

      More permanent side effects:

      future infertility

      permanent disability

      death.

    • dance commander

      A zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t a chlid.

      And you want to talk about a violence? This is what that ‘child’ does to a woman:

      Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

      exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

      altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

      nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)

      heartburn and indigestion

      constipation

      weight gain

      dizziness and light-headedness

      bloating, swelling, fluid retention

      hemmorhoids

      abdominal cramps

      yeast infections

      congested, bloody nose

      acne and mild skin disorders

      skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

      mild to severe backache and strain

      increased headaches

      difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

      increased urination and incontinence

      bleeding gums

      pica

      breast pain and discharge

      swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

      difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

      inability to take regular medications

      shortness of breath

      higher blood pressure

      hair loss

      tendency to anemia

      curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

      infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women,
      and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

      extreme pain on delivery

      hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

      continued
      post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section —
      major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
      fully recover)

      Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

      stretch marks (worse in younger women)

      loose skin

      permanent weight gain or redistribution

      abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

      pelvic
      floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former
      child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with
      urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life —
      aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the
      transvaginal mesh)

      changes to breasts

      varicose veins

      scarring from episiotomy or c-section

      other
      permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by
      women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

      increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

      loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

      higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

      newer
      research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges
      of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother
      (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

      Occasional complications and side effects:

      complications of episiotomy

      spousal/partner abuse

      hyperemesis gravidarum

      temporary and permanent injury to back

      severe scarring requiring later surgery

      (especially after additional pregnancies)

      dropped
      (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
      pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
      and enterocele)

      pre-eclampsia
      (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy,
      associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

      eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

      gestational diabetes

      placenta previa

      anemia (which can be life-threatening)

      thrombocytopenic purpura

      severe cramping

      embolism (blood clots)

      medical
      disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
      many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
      or baby)

      diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

      mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

      serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

      hormonal imbalance

      ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

      broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)

      hemorrhage and

      numerous other complications of delivery

      refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

      aggravation
      of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in
      .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and
      treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency
      of seizures)

      severe post-partum depression and psychosis

      research
      now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female
      fertility treatments, including “egg harvesting” from infertile women
      and donors

      research
      also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival
      rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

      research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

      Less common (but serious) complications:

      peripartum cardiomyopathy

      cardiopulmonary arrest

      magnesium toxicity

      severe hypoxemia/acidosis

      massive embolism

      increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

      molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease

      (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

      malignant arrhythmia

      circulatory collapse

      placental abruption

      obstetric fistula

      More permanent side effects:

      future infertility

      permanent disability

      death.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Oh look, Sandy, Donna and Robin are spamming again.

    • fiona64

      Oh, gawd. These idiots again?

  • Jennifer Starr

    Apology accepted, though I have to admit that the fact that you would consider anything by Joseph Farah to be excellent is somewhat disturbing. To each his own, I expect.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Your page and your facebook lists only five fans. Five. And it’s no coincidence that three of those people are American women living in Germany. The leadership of pro-plan right there.

  • fiona64

    Your “public fan base” of five people, three of whom are your “organization”?

    Laughable.

    BTW, the most effective form of contraception is surgical sterilization … which not all women are able to obtain. Please, stop spouting your NFP nonsense.

  • Jennifer Starr

    NFP means Natural Family Planning, Sandy/Donna/Robin Someone who’s supposedly interested in planning should be aware of this. Don’t you think? Your organization is a joke.

  • fiona64

    I suppose you think you’re terribly clever.

    Allow me to disabuse you of that notion.