I have been a habitual watcher of Shields and Brooks commentary on PBS for more than thirty years. Every Friday evening on the Newshour, these two provide perspective, without namecalling. I know that many around DKos don’t like Brooks. I admit he is too smarmy at times. But that is another matter. Last night I was listening to their most recent PBS segment and they were discussing the bill now in the Virginia Legislature. The terms used to describe abortions in late pregnancy indicated to me that they do not remotely understand what they were talking about. Brooks was discussing the situation with the Governor of Virginia and stated that he was disturbed by “his (Governor Northam’s) remarks about babies being left to die on tables when they are born during late term abortions” (1:11 of the video).
The remarks of Brooks really takes place at 2:46. Shields, to my dismay, joined in by calling late-term abortions “infanticide.” Judy Woodruff, the moderator, moved the discussion along.
Here is my problem — the phrase “Health of the mother.”
Join me below the fold, but I do want to alert you to the idea that we will discuss some medical problems that occur in real life which are deeply troubling and tragic for many persons. My heart goes out to anybody who has faced these issues.
The main problem in the way it is described is that after about 24 weeks, a baby is “viable” outside the mother’s body. Both Shields and Brooks, when they talk about babies, seem to be thinking of a cute cuddly crying baby that would soon be in a crib, wearing a ‘onesie.”
In no case would any such baby ever be left to die on a table. Removal of a fetus in the seventh, eighth or ninth month of pregnancy is called “cesarean delivery” as it results in birth not abortion.
Health of the Mother is a euphemism used to allow lay persons to never need to contemplate something that is disturbing and horrible. I think nobody wants to graphically spell out what it actually means, because of that reason.
The truth is, there are two specific ways that a pregnancy can turn out that result in a nonviable delivery of a fetus. You can Google these and click on “images” to see graphic and disturbing photos that show exactly what these are. I am *not* linking these, nor am I embedding a photo. These are thought by many ( including doctors and nurses) to be too disturbing and you need to be mentally prepared. Many persons who look at such photos will have bad dreams afterwards.
The first is a condition known as “anencephaly.” This is a severe neurological deficit in which parts of the skull do not develop, and in most cases, the brain does not develop. This baby would generally die soon after birth anyway. For that reason, compelling doctors and nurses to resuscitate it as if it were normal or viable, is considerably less humane than allowing to die with some semblance of dignity. To imply that a weeping mother who wished for a healthy baby has chosen to abort an otherwise viable fetus, is to trivialize a great tragedy.
GTD
The second medical condition is “Gestational Trophoblastic Disease (GTD)” also known as “Hydatidiform Mole” or sometimes “Molar pregnancy.” In this disorder, the womb gets occupied by lumps of tissue that resemble grapes. A severely deformed fetus is sometimes also present, but such a fetus is not capable of extra-uterine life. The kicker in a molar pregnancy is that if proper treatment is not initiated ( including sweeping all tissue out of the womb), the woman has a high chance to develop “choriocarcinoma” a serious form of cancer. Here is a link (no pictures):www.cancer.org/…
This same debate has been described by Dr. Jen Gunter, an OBGYN doctor now practicing in California. For those of you who follow any debate on women’s health, especially the ones involving these gut-wrenching topics, her Twitter feed (@DrJenGunter) and blog “Wielding the Lasso of Truth” website are mandatory reading. She is an unquestioned expert on these topics.
I highly recommend her most recent blog entry: : drjengunter.wordpress.com/…
Dr. Gunter’s first three paragraphs are:
There have been a lot of lies circulating about abortion since New York State passed a law allowing abortion after 24 weeks if the health of the mother is at risk or if there are lethal fetal anomalies.
This does not mean that ladies who just forgot their 8 week abortion who are now struggling to fit into their pants can get their better-late-than-never abortion. It means doctors can do the right thing medically if the situation arises and women with lethal fetal anomalies at or after 24 weeks will not have to travel to New Jersey or elsewhere for an abortion. It also offers protection if Roe v. Wade falls.
This has sadly been an opportunity to mischaracterize and even lie about what women who are 24 or more weeks pregnant go through when they need an abortion and I find this deeply offensive.
This is the same doctor who has a regular column in the New York Times.
on Doctor Gunter’s Twitter feed she also listed some other reasons why a late term removal of the fetus may be necessary:
For me, as an RN for decades, who has previously taught maternity nursing at a school of nursing, and who has worked in a low income country in Asia that had appalling levels of peri-natal mortality, Dr Gunter is the main expert on this topic now speaking out in the public arena. Nobody else lends as much gravitas to this debate, IMHO.
And in case, you haven’t figured it out, I am deeply in favor of the woman’s right to confer with her doctor undisturbed by the fantasy somebody has about what we are discussing.
Back to Shields and Brooks
I will still keep watching PBS on Friday, but I think they need to get real about what it is they are describing, and go beyond the simple platitudes. We need to resist the urge to adopt the framing of the “pro-life” movement in this debate.