If Cesarean birth is legal--could this be an alternative to partial birth?

[flamingpie2500]

This latest ruling is horrifying for people who have to make the decision. Luckily I am past child bearing age. I am not really medically informed about partial birth, but hope this could be an alternative rather than letting mothers die without doing something!!
Of course that said, they will probably BAN Cesarean next!

[papau]

1. It is a danger to the mother question - Cesarean is a major operation - more danger - but real

alternative is to cut up the fetus into chunks while still in the womb and then remove the chunks.

No "partial birth" - so no breaking the law.

But it sounds just as horrible - but is a valid choice to save mother's life.

[rfranklin]

2. No such thing as partial birth abortion...

The term is a public relations phrase designed to rile up the Fundies.

From Wikipedia--

Though the procedure has a low rate of usage, representing 0.17% of all abortions in the US in 2000 according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,<1> it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate.

Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a non-medical term used to refer to some late-term abortion procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

[A HERETIC I AM]

7. THANK YOU FOR SAYING SO!!

It chaps the hell out of me to see the term "Partial Birth Abortion" used on DU.

That term describes NO KNOWN MEDICAL PROCEDURE!

The procedure is called "Intact dilation and extraction"

Not only is PBA a public relations phrase, it is intentionally inflammatory and disingenuous in its inaccuracy.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. They'll never ban c-sections. There is more money to be made in them than vaginal

deliveries.

My first was born with a c-section. It was a medical necessity because I had a condition called placenta previa. If he was born vaginally we both might have bled out.
When I became pregnant with my second, the OBGYN asked me when I wanted to schedule my next c-section for, I told him no, I wanted to try naturally this time. Which I did.

The C-Section would have been about $1000 more for the doctor and so much more for the hospital.

Doctors also believe that there are fewer complicatins with c-sections and less of a liability for them if something goes wrong during delivery.

[Maine-ah]

6. v-bacs aren't all that safe either.

for me, I'll spend the extra thousand :hi:

[flamingpie2500]

13. You are so right. I swear I know more people who have had C-sections

than normal births. Sisters included.

[galileo3000]

20. I was born via C-section.

It has not affected my development at all, except occasionally when I leave a room, I want to go out the Window.
jk;-D peace -galileo

[JoDog]

4. The very fact that later term abortions

are still taught in medical schools and are in the ob/gyn "playbook", so to speak, indicates that doctors still consider it to be the best, safest procedure in some cases.

The SCOTUS then has taken the decision of what is the best procedure out of the hands of doctors. Make no mistake about it--women will die or face serious life-altering medical conditions due to this decision. Wanna talk about what's best for the children? What about the children already born who may be left motherless by the consequences of this decision? Will doctors be forced to convince a court that a woman would have died without the procedure (the law allows exemptions for the life of the mother, but not the health)? A standard that's almost impossible to live up to, by the way.

I usually don't like to put things in such stark terms, but yesterday's decision has me so mad I can barely see straight.

[Bridget Burke]

5. Sure, slice her open...

The option of cutting the fetus into bits is still legal, too.

But "Partial Birth Abortion" sounds bad--even though it's often the best option in very sad situations. But now illegal.

[gollygee]

8. The problem with c-sections for this

The procedure that was banned is used for one condition, and it's a condition where the head swells to a very large size. The size of the incision for a C-section large enough can be dangerous for future pregnancies. That's why they use this particular procedure. It isn't just to be mean. *sigh* I've been arguing with people about this who just don't understand.

[flamingpie2500]

9. If I was a doctor and faced with the choice--is the C- section viable?

Rather than spend 2 years in jail. Could this be used as a "legal" alternative?

[gollygee]

11. It will have to be the alternative

but it will put women at risk of uterine rupture in future pregnancies. This procedure is done late in a pregnancy, so we're talking about women who wanted to have babies. In most cases they will get pregnant again and they will be at higher risk of uterine rupture - which can very likely cause death of both the mother and the fetus - in future pregnancies. It's really sad and what's saddest is that people are happy about this ban thinking that healthy babies were being aborted this way. People are so ignorant.

[Atman]

14. C-section is major surgery.

So, you're unnecessarily risking the life of the mother. Period. Unnessarily is the key words. It's as if your doctor decides to put you under a general anesthetic and perform an operation to burn a wart off your finger -- there is no need to put the patient through that risk when another known procedure is demonstrably safer to her well being.

This ban is all about the emotional and political well-being of the right wing, and has nothing to do with medicine or the health of the woman.

.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Not sure but are Planned Parenthood Clinics set up to do them?

[Atman]

10. You want to see some people who don't understand, check out the other sites

You know the ones. Our old friends at FR and CU are posting some of the most stunningly ignorant comments I've ever seen on the issue. The truly, no exaggeration, are simply clueless about what it is this procedure is about. The fact that they'd happily overrule the medical training of a doctor based upon the opinions of a couple of political appointees, though, is was cause it to cross the line from ignorance into flat-out stupidity. What has this country become?

.

[gollygee]

12. It's heartbreaking

I know someone who had this procedure and she was heartbroken. And anti-abortion before she was so sadly shown one of the reasons why they are necessary. :( It makes me very sad to hear the ignorance in the world about this.

[flamingpie2500]

15. Sad and horrible. Why is is anyones business? It should be between

the doctor and the patient. As if it wasn't hard enough for this girl to have been through this, now everytime it is on the news it brings back those bad times.
What an outrage!!

[Atman]

18. The justices sound equally ignorant and unrealistic

Listening on NPR yesterday, I was stunned at the remarks of the majority opinion, claiming that women could still seek redress on a case-by-case basis. As was pointed out by NPR, that's absurd on its face, because this procedure is so often done on an emergency basis. Can you imagine a woman laying on the table, about to bleed out...and saying "WAIT! I want to file a court challenge!" They tried to play it both ways, claiming that this didn't actually eliminate the possibility of the procedure ever being done. Of course it does, and they know it. And our right to self determination takes another hit by one of the most backward governments currently on the planet.

.

[Bunny]

16. Another issue is that the fetus will most likely be born alive with a Ceasarian.

This is a fetus with gross abnormalities that will render it almost certainly incompatible with life. So, the mother will be forced to go through a dangerous (both in the present and for future pregnancies,) major surgical procedure only to deliver a fetus who will not survive. What's the point? :shrug:

[rebecca_herman]

22. There is no point...

The people who passed this bill and support it are delusional and refuse to accept the reality of why this procedure was sometimes used. Forcing a woman who wanted a baby to be cut open, watch her tragically deformed newborn die almost immediately, and put her and a future pregnancy at risk if she wants to try again for a healthy baby is inhumane... but all they care about is they think they saved all the healthy babies who were being aborted this way. They do not see reality or why it's cruel and pointless to force a woman to undergo a greater risk to birth a fetus that will never survive no matter what anyone does.

[ljm2002]

19. Here's the thing...

...in most cases, a vaginal procedure is much less risky to the mother than a C-section. But now, doctors do not get to make that decision. That is the crux of the matter.

[Gloria]

21. C-section doesn't solve the problem for some of these situations.....