New York State Senate Passes Bill Permitting Abortions up to Birth

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 Not to take away from Yuna’s sad story about a mother’s and child’s misery, a friend of mine had to deliver prematurely last year.  Don’t remember the details, except that she has preeclampsia, and the baby was born several months early.  Spent the next 3 or 4 months in intensive care in a hospital, requiring several surgical procedures, and lots of care.  But today, he is at home with his mom and dad, and seems to be pretty healthy overall.  Some might call it a miracle.  But living proof that 8-10 months is not the magic number for viability.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

I am all about choices.  Not sure I agree with it being JUST the woman’s choice, though it is her body.  What if she doesn’t want the baby, but the father does?  It’s half his.  But if she doesn’t want to carry it to term and give it to him, that is her choice.  Slippery slope.

 

But as to the long-term abortion choice... I still think THAT decision should be made before copulation.  There are just FAR too many effective contraceptive options available today to prevent unwanted births, and should be the go-to method in my opinion.  

 

But for oopsies, aborting within the first month is not an issue for me personally.  Aborting for unhealty/disfigured child is an easy decision as well, even a few months into the process.  It takes time to diagnose, understand, and make a decision.  Having watched families suffer for years caring for unhealthy children makes me thankful every day that my kids were healthy.  So I could understand a couple’s decision to abort for medical reasons.

 

About the only time I could see a late-term abortion coming into play is a relationship break up.  Say a couple decided to get pregnant, but 6 months later they split.  Perhaps the mom doesn’t have the best job (or any job).  Is it a good idea to bring that kid into the world to potentially live in poverty?  Sure, adoption is available, but not often easy nor cheap.  And this scenario can’t be all that common, so I don’t really see why anyone would ever want to abort just prior to birth.  Even if you take out the morality issue of murder, why would it be a thought in any normal mother’s mind to abort in the 9th or 10th month?  

 

    Agree or not, that is the law. It is the woman's choice ultimately and hopefully something that has come up in discussion before a relationship gets to that point. It is also something I have discussed with every woman I have been in a relationship with since I was in my early 20's. How they feel about children, and what they would do when it was unplanned is a significant factor for me, so there was my choice as to whether to contribute to procreation or not. Being that I like babies (and they seem to really like me too for some reason), I would never let it get to the point where someone would be making that decision without me. The difference is I am comfortable with my own morals being applied to my own choices. Not to other peoples.

 

   I don't see a relationship breakup as a valid reason for a late term abortion, but there are other reasons such as serious genetic issues that were not discovered earlier. As was said earlier, it's very rare for someone to carry a baby for 6 months and then change their mind. It's usually medical issues for it to happen at that point.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

22 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Agree or not, that is the law. It is the woman's choice ultimately and hopefully something that has come up in discussion before a relationship gets to that point. It is also something I have discussed with every woman I have been in a relationship with since I was in my early 20's. How they feel about children, and what they would do when it was unplanned is a significant factor for me, so there was my choice as to whether to contribute to procreation or not. Being that I like babies (and they seem to really like me too for some reason), I would never let it get to the point where someone would be making that decision without me. The difference is I am comfortable with my own morals being applied to my own choices. Not to other peoples.

 

   I don't see a relationship breakup as a valid reason for a late term abortion, but there are other reasons such as serious genetic issues that were not discovered earlier. As was said earlier, it's very rare for someone to carry a baby for 6 months and then change their mind. It's usually medical issues for it to happen at that point.

Not saying a break up is a valid reason for a late term abortion, just A reason for such.  Late term for medical, I am fine with, but there really shouldn’t be too many of those with today’s technology.

 

I, too, make sure the women I have been with and I see eye-to-eye on the topic of kids.  As in crystal.  But I have male friends who have had their children killed by the mother without giving the man a chance to take the kid and raise it.  Sad situation, law or not, and it devastated the guys.  

[yuna628 9,528]

6 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Sorry to hear about that situation and subsequent loss in your family, Yuna.  Truly sad.

 

I have always supported abortion for rape, to me that’s a no-brainer.  But less restrictive birth control?  How so?  Since I was a kid, condoms, diaphragms, pills, vasectomies/tubligations, and various other methods have been available.  Costs vary, of course.

 

Cannot have an abortion until waiting until something develops?  That seems like the opposite of good, common sense to me.  What state, do you remember?

Cannot recall the state, but think it was somewhere down south?

 

Here's what I mean about less restrictive: for years some in the medical community have thought that the pill is safe enough (and we have enough varieties today) to be sold OTC. Those in congress don't want to consider this, because of religious lobbying. I'm a little more cautious about that prospect, knowing the side effects, but when compared to many other OTC products which have big side effects, I don't see how it is much different. No they are not 100% effective, but they are absolutely more effective than condoms. I recently watched some commentary though that, with the exception of lowering dosage changes, research and development into making the pill better for women is pretty flat, compared to research into other products for men. Despite that, the pill isn't just used for preventing pregnancy these days, but prescribed to woman for a variety of painful and difficult conditions... to the point there's no other option, even if you don't want to go on it.

 

Then we have to consider the cost of the pill and similar products (shots/IUDs etc). Pre-ACA my sister needed to be on some shots that cost about $1,000, before having her surgery. It wasn't her wanting to prevent pregnancy, it was medically necessary as part of treatment. As for myself, I have spent a lot of thought about the pill and it's cost. I never wanted to be on it, for personal reasons, but after a trip to the hospital and multiple doctors later,  have discovered it's the only 'solution'. The condition has no cure, and the only therapy they really offer is the pill. Without it, my hormones won't be regulated and will affect other organs, anemia will continue, and I will put myself at higher risk for cancer, endometriosis, and hyperplasia will worsen. It was a lot to consider all at once! Immediately, I had concerns about side effects (of which are numerous) and if I could afford it. The ACA helps the pill be covered, and thankfully I didn't pay a dime.. BUT the cost of the drug itself was staggering at nearly $900 for a three month supply. Not to mention the US, blood/other tests, and multiple visits just to get it (and being constantly asked if I'm pregnant.. got so angry and tired of it, it was a touchy subject for me because I'd love to have kids and the whole thing was upsetting). By law not all states require that birth control be provided for a long term solution. Instead you have to get limited 3-month packets, before having to have blood tests or yet another copay for a visit just to get the OBGYN to write the script (it starts to begin to feel almost like what one has to go through to receive pain medication!). It's a money-making scheme. After that when you get to the pharmacy, you are also required by law (at least in this state) to be questioned about why you are taking it, and if you are pregnant etc... IMO not really something I want to be asked loudly by the pimple-faced tween working the pharma counter when I've got a line behind me. And let's hope that your pharmacist doesn't have any objections to filling it either! It's a PITA. I was discussing the nonsense with my other sister, who was also forced to use the shot for medical reasons for years, and while she is not a Democrat, is thankful that coverage for birth control was in her opinion - one good thing the ACA did for her... there's no way should could afford it otherwise. .No one can seem to figure out exactly why a pill, which really has changed very little over the years, cost so much compared to other products.

 

At any rate, if you are still reading my bit of a ramble, consider that if better access to birth control were around and affordable, women may be less likely to have unplanned pregnancies in the future and it could also reduce abortions in the future. Furthermore it wouldn't just put the burden of responsibility on the guy to get a condom and use it properly and would help protect a woman if it should fail, or even in situations where a woman was attacked. I just find it another way that the government, pressured by people who do not belong in my health business, create a money-making hassle. And for what? They don't want a woman to 'kill' a baby, nor do they want her to 'have a baby', but they don't exactly care what happens to that baby when it's born and when no one can afford to care for it and the future suffering it will endure. And look I get it, people don't want their 'kids' running around having crazy sex and babies (maybe they should take greater care and support in those kid's lives). But whatever we're doing now isn't working either that's for sure.

[millefleur 5,035]

14 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It's a money-making scheme

That about summed up everything I wanted to say in response to the costs around this! On a related note:

 

 

Also, totally getting a bit off topic here but IUD's can be potentially severely dangerous for women with uterine abnormalities. Doctors in the US do not do diagnostic ultrasound or MRI checks for these abnormalities, so if you get an IUD put in and let's say you have a "two horned" (bicarbonate or separate) uterus, it will not prevent pregnancy and you can get pregnant with an IUD and it will be extremely dangerous for both the mother and the child. Such uterine abnormalities occur in about 1 out of 100 women.

 

In the States, docs do not do pre-screeings for these abnormalities before inserting an IUD. It's absurd. It can be discovered within minutes using an ultrasound machine, and followed up with an MRI for diagnostic certainty. In other countries, they will absolutely pre-screen for these issues to avoid any dangerous IUD pregnancy situations, but in the US they do not do it and it baffles me as to why. Watched a YouTube video of a woman in the US who had to go through absolute hell of delivering a stillborn baby because the doctors did not do a diagnostic check to see if she had uterine abnormalities (and turns out she did, doctors didn't even know what was the issue until after the stillbirth)..

 

In (most urban areas of) Russia, for example, there are ultrasound, machines (the exact same ones as in the US! imported from abroad!) on hand at any decent clinic and doing ultrasounds for women is just so common, it's like getting your blood pressure checked and it's cheap, you can pay out of pocket without insurance. No idea why it's so unheard of in the US. Ultrasounds are not seen as a fancy tool or option there, it's just consider normal checking. I think in the US, it's just a money making scheme to make it seem like ultrasounds are these super specific machines that only certain people need, which is just not true at all.

 

If it were up to me, mandatory ultrasounds for women who ask about IUD's should be necessary. Ideally mandatory ultrasounds covered by insurance would be necessary as uterine abnormalities (which a person is born with, it has nothing to do with lifestyle) can cause a whole other lot of issues with pregnancy too, and in some cases the uterus can be corrected before pregnancy and it can help reduce the risks associated with it. I really do not understand why such things even in developing countries such as Russia are more advanced/better for women's health than in the US sometimes... /end rant 

 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

28 minutes ago, millefleur said:

That about summed up everything I wanted to say in response to the costs around this! On a related note:

 

 

Also, totally getting a bit off topic here but IUD's can be potentially severely dangerous for women with uterine abnormalities. Doctors in the US do not do diagnostic ultrasound or MRI checks for these abnormalities, so if you get an IUD put in and let's say you have a "two horned" (bicarbonate or separate) uterus, it will not prevent pregnancy and you can get pregnant with an IUD and it will be extremely dangerous for both the mother and the child. Such uterine abnormalities occur in about 1 out of 100 women.

 

In the States, docs do not do pre-screeings for these abnormalities before inserting an IUD. It's absurd. It can be discovered within minutes using an ultrasound machine, and followed up with an MRI for diagnostic certainty. In other countries, they will absolutely pre-screen for these issues to avoid any dangerous IUD pregnancy situations, but in the US they do not do it and it baffles me as to why. Watched a YouTube video of a woman in the US who had to go through absolute hell of delivering a stillborn baby because the doctors did not do a diagnostic check to see if she had uterine abnormalities (and turns out she did, doctors didn't even know what was the issue until after the stillbirth)..

 

In (most urban areas of) Russia, for example, there are ultrasound, machines (the exact same ones as in the US! imported from abroad!) on hand at any decent clinic and doing ultrasounds for women is just so common, it's like getting your blood pressure checked and it's cheap, you can pay out of pocket without insurance. No idea why it's so unheard of in the US. Ultrasounds are not seen as a fancy tool or option there, it's just consider normal checking. I think in the US, it's just a money making scheme to make it seem like ultrasounds are these super specific machines that only certain people need, which is just not true at all.

 

If it were up to me, mandatory ultrasounds for women who ask about IUD's should be necessary. Ideally mandatory ultrasounds covered by insurance would be necessary as uterine abnormalities (which a person is born with, it has nothing to do with lifestyle) can cause a whole other lot of issues with pregnancy too, and in some cases the uterus can be corrected before pregnancy and it can help reduce the risks associated with it. I really do not understand why such things even in developing countries such as Russia are more advanced/better for women's health than in the US sometimes... /end rant 

 

Because if you told someone they are required to have an ultrasound even for their own good there would be riots and late night lawyer commercials offering inclusion in a class action suit

[millefleur 5,035]

Just now, Randyandyuni said:

Because if you told someone they are required to have an ultrasound even for their own good there would be riots and late night lawyer commercials offering inclusion in a class action suit 

Why??? Is there something wrong or dangerous about ultrasounds?? My husband has a medical background and he told me ultrasounds are perfectly safe.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

Because if you told someone they are required to have an ultrasound even for their own good there would be riots and late night lawyer commercials offering inclusion in a class action suit

 

   There are many medical procedures that have requirements for diagnostic testing to be completed before they can be done. It is not an issue of lawsuits, it's an issue of the approach by the medical community. It's an elective procedure. Doctors can require an ultrasound before they begin. As they do for many other procedures.

 

  It will take a medical malpractice lawsuit or two in the other direction to change the thinking on this. Once physicians realize they are at risk, it will become standard practice. There are many OBGYN doctors who require this already.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Steeleballz

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

49 minutes ago, millefleur said:

Why??? Is there something wrong or dangerous about ultrasounds?? My husband has a medical background and he told me ultrasounds are perfectly safe.

Because they would be forced to have it, someone would sue for invasion of privacy. I am not disagreeing with the practice, just anticipating the knee jerk reaction

Edited February 1, 2019 by Randyandyuni

[millefleur 5,035]

36 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

Because they would be forced to have it, someone would sue for invasion of privacy. I am not disagreeing with the practice, just anticipating the knee jerk reaction

Pretty funny when you put in the context of OB/GYN visits and getting an IUD inserted, if you can imagine the level privacy/personal space invasion that involves...an ultrasound is nothing compared to that, haha.

[yuna628 9,528]

1 hour ago, millefleur said:

That about summed up everything I wanted to say in response to the costs around this! On a related note:

 

 

Also, totally getting a bit off topic here but IUD's can be potentially severely dangerous for women with uterine abnormalities. Doctors in the US do not do diagnostic ultrasound or MRI checks for these abnormalities, so if you get an IUD put in and let's say you have a "two horned" (bicarbonate or separate) uterus, it will not prevent pregnancy and you can get pregnant with an IUD and it will be extremely dangerous for both the mother and the child. Such uterine abnormalities occur in about 1 out of 100 women.

 

In the States, docs do not do pre-screeings for these abnormalities before inserting an IUD. It's absurd. It can be discovered within minutes using an ultrasound machine, and followed up with an MRI for diagnostic certainty. In other countries, they will absolutely pre-screen for these issues to avoid any dangerous IUD pregnancy situations, but in the US they do not do it and it baffles me as to why. Watched a YouTube video of a woman in the US who had to go through absolute hell of delivering a stillborn baby because the doctors did not do a diagnostic check to see if she had uterine abnormalities (and turns out she did, doctors didn't even know what was the issue until after the stillbirth)..

 

In (most urban areas of) Russia, for example, there are ultrasound, machines (the exact same ones as in the US! imported from abroad!) on hand at any decent clinic and doing ultrasounds for women is just so common, it's like getting your blood pressure checked and it's cheap, you can pay out of pocket without insurance. No idea why it's so unheard of in the US. Ultrasounds are not seen as a fancy tool or option there, it's just consider normal checking. I think in the US, it's just a money making scheme to make it seem like ultrasounds are these super specific machines that only certain people need, which is just not true at all.

 

If it were up to me, mandatory ultrasounds for women who ask about IUD's should be necessary. Ideally mandatory ultrasounds covered by insurance would be necessary as uterine abnormalities (which a person is born with, it has nothing to do with lifestyle) can cause a whole other lot of issues with pregnancy too, and in some cases the uterus can be corrected before pregnancy and it can help reduce the risks associated with it. I really do not understand why such things even in developing countries such as Russia are more advanced/better for women's health than in the US sometimes... /end rant 

 

I have little experience with IUDs but the thought of using one bothers me personally. I don't really think a lot of women go into an OBGYN and demand that they have one. We really rely on what our OBGYNs advise for us. With my condition it's not appropriate as treatment, but I can see how some women would be tempted by it, considering it can stay in for a while and thus not have to deal with constantly going in just to get a prescription. My OBGYN required two types of US for me in trying to figure out what was wrong and a CT, along with multiple other tests, but she didn't have it on site, which meant going to another lab. EOB for that was another couple $1000s.

 

38 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

Because they would be forced to have it, someone would sue for invasion of privacy. I am not disagreeing with the practice, just anticipating the knee jerk reaction

Well, a pelvic US can be very invasive and painful, but it is really between a woman and her OBGYN. They are also expensive, so depending on your insurance, having one can be problematic. I will also point out that taking the pill affects each woman a bit differently, some women cannot manage the side effects or it does not help the problem. In those cases an IUD or injection may be more appropriate.

[millefleur 5,035]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

My OBGYN required two types of US for me in trying to figure out what was wrong and a CT, along with multiple other tests, but she didn't have it on site, which meant going to another lab. EOB for that was another couple $1000s.

Was that with insurance..?

 

And people wonder why medical tourism is a thing...

[yuna628 9,528]

8 minutes ago, millefleur said:

Was that with insurance..?

 

And people wonder why medical tourism is a thing...

It cost me about $150 for the scans, $20 for all the bloodwork, $60 copay every time I see the OBGYN, and $150 for the ER visit (that was a HUGE EOB). The insurance paid for the rest of the big bills. Had it been my old insurance though? I would have had to pay for most of it!

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

Its amazing how close must of us are to being of pretty much the same agreement on abortions.  As i said earlier i think most Americans are pro choice with strict late term options , but anti abortion on a personal level.

 

This is an issue to inflame the masses 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Its amazing how close must of us are to being of pretty much the same agreement on abortions.  As i said earlier i think most Americans are pro choice with strict late term options , but anti abortion on a personal level.

 

This is an issue to inflame the masses 

 

   Yep, which is why I take issue with terms like "pro abortion" used earlier in the thread. Nobody wants it to happen, but I think we recognize for the most part that it will happen and we really can't stop it from happening.

 

   Personally, I've only known 2 people who have had abortions, and for both, it is a decision that I think has haunted them the rest of there lives. It's not something they wanted to do, it's something they thought they had to do. 

 

  I will also never forget my first week on the job working in a hospital, when someone came into the ER after attempting what they used to call a "coat hanger abortion".  If it's going to happen (and it is), I would rather see it happen legally and with medical supervision. Because the alternative is not something you ever want to see.