News: Did the Medical Care Received Equal an Abortion or Birth Control?

News: Did the Medical Care Received Equal an Abortion or Birth Control? May 19, 2014

Just like many of you dear readers we have been following Zsuzsanna Anderson, the wife of Arizona pastor Steven L. Anderson at her blog, Are They All Yours!!,  and watching her recent struggles with a high risk pregnancy.  Thankfully the  medical treatment she received for Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome helped her deliver a normal healthy baby boy.

Recently Steven was in the media for decrying all birth control because it was destroying the USA. He claimed that with birth control women weren’t busy enough, causing them to join ‘whoredom’ That’s the short version at least. We wrote about his problems with birth control. The Anderson’s are also anti-vaxers and before this last pregnancy they were very much opposed to going to doctors or using conventional medical treatments.

But Alternet is asking questions, the same questions many of us have had since learning of the medical problems with the twins Zsuzsanna was carrying.

Steven Anderson’s multi-hour diatribe against contraceptives, the tools that allow thoughtful, intentional healthier

childbearing, sounds like the ranting of a madman. Here is a man who has gone so far down the rabbit hole of bibliolatry that he now lives psychologically in the Iron Age universe of the Bible writers. And yet, faced with the complicated options offered by modern medicine — choices far beyond the grasp of our Iron Age ancestors — Anderson and his wife transcended the authors of the Bible and even Martin Luther, author of the Reformation. They chose life in spite of their “pro-life” rhetoric; they chose it even when it meant choosing death. Confronted with a crisis decision that would traumatize any of us, they faced it with dignity and data, and they did the best they knew how for their family.

Zsuzanna Anderson is upset that Alternet has started asking questions about their faith and how it might have been changed or compromised when Zsuzanna and Steven had to make hard decisions in that place where the rubber meets the road. She is concerned that anyone might think that they compromised their beliefs in what they did.

But the Alternet article – Bible-Thumping Pastor Believes Women Shouldn’t Interfere With ‘God’s Will’ in Pregnancy –  Except His Own Wife by Valerie Tarico, isn’t necessarily bad, it only holds up a mirror to what has already happened and the changes that occur inside when we have to make those hard resolutions to life’s problems.

The hopeful, inspiring part of the Anderson story is the reminder that often when dogma and love clash, love wins out. When it does, the very same reasoning capacity that has been put to work defending dogma can be repurposed in the service of compassion and connection. That is why, when queer Americans persisted in telling their stories despite the risk, the needle started moving on marriage equality.

To date, the most powerful tool of the anti-abortion, anti-contraception patriarchs has been shaming, often in the name of the biblical God. Many women make difficult decisions about pregnancies — courageous, complicated decisions that are worthy of honor. Like Mrs. Anderson, we struggle to live wisely and well, to give our children the best possible chance in life within the framework of our moral and spiritual values whether those values are religious or secular. But instead of being honored, these difficult decisions and the women who make them often become the targets of judgment and denigration. Alone and ashamed, women lose their voices to the point that they don’t share some of the most crucial moments in their lives with even their sisters and daughters.

What do you think?

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Independent Thinker

    In all fairness, Zsuzanna Anderson did respond to this on her blog.

    http://stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.com/2014/05/setting-record-straight.html

    Yes, she got an abortion. I hope she now crosses the bridge to team pro-choice or team a woman knows what to do with her own body.

  • texcee

    The decision’s not so easy when you have to make it, is it? Reminds me of the old rock song, “He can’t even run his own life. I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine!”

  • Nightshade

    For the record I think they probably made the best choice they could under the circumstances. However I did see something there that seems inconsistent with their point of view on pregnancy-related events.

    ‘1. Laser ablation of the connected blood vessels in the placenta. These
    blood vessels were never supposed to be connected to begin with.’

    Isn’t that a little inconsistent with everything being in their god’s hands? Do they believe that there is a time and place for humans to say that what their god caused/allowed was ‘never supposed to be’?

  • Mel

    I never thought I’d say this, but Zsuzanna’s blog post is closer to the medical science truth of the situation than Alternet’s is. (Damn, I’d never thought I’d write that.)

    Check out:

    http://www.tttsfoundation.org/help_during_pregnancy/connecting_blood.php

    When treated, survival rates for BOTH twins are around 65%. That’s not an abortive procedure; it’s fetal surgery.

    I know this also from personal experience. My twin and I were suffering from TTTS before birth. When we were born unexpectedly at 29 weeks (32 years ago – no ultrasounds, no prenatal diagnosis of TTTS, 24 hours notice of twins), my sister was white-grey because every time her heart beat, some of her blood transferred into my placenta and never came back. She was slowly bleeding to death just as Jachin was. Jachin’s only chance at survival was to cauterize the blood vessels that were causing him to bleed to death into Boaz. Jachin died, but not because of the surgery; the poor little guy was too severely compromised from blood loss to regenerate his amniotic fluid etc. The Andersons tried to save both babies. They failed, but that happens. If it had been available, my parents would have gotten the same surgery and perhaps my sis and I would have been spared mild physical disabilities for both of us and deafness for my sis.

    Do I think the Andersons are hypocrites? YES. They are hypocritical on their beliefs on modern medicine and education of women all freaking day long. Zsuzanna’s views on medical insurance and natural foods are ragingly hypocritical.

    But they didn’t have an abortion. They tried to save their son and failed.

  • Trollface McGee

    I’m glad that she is ok and the one twin survived.
    But the world that she and her husband rail against is the reason she could be helped during her pregnancy. A world of science, technology, medicines, female doctors, male doctors being able to treat female patients, women having access to reproductive health (including birth control and abortion) is the reason why infant and maternal mortality is as low as it is.

  • Trollface McGee

    I don’t think she had an abortion either.
    However, they define anything that (even slightly or without evidence) increases the risk of miscarriage as abortifacient. The one article she posted recently has her stating that using stevia causing “abortions.” By that definition, a procedure, that even slightly or anecdotally, causes the zef from coming to term is abortion and by that definition, you could make a case.
    But, I don’t think that’s an accurate definition and I agree with you that they are hypocrites in so many other ways that I don’t even need to go there to call them that.

  • Saraquill

    Does this mean her husband is going to denounce her?

  • myintx

    No, she did not get an abortion.

    Most people that are against abortion make an exception for if the woman’s life is truly endangered from the pregnancy. If she did have an abortion, it would have been for similar reasons – without it, both unborn children would have died. With it, at least one gets a chance at a full and productive life. She found another way that did give both unborn children a chance, unfortunately, one died.

    You cannot use the exception to justify all abortions. Killing an unborn child for 15 minutes of fame (Emily Letts) is not the same as abortion to save a woman’s life.

    Team PRO-LIFE.

  • myintx

    the medical intervention they got was not an abortion, so it was not officially ‘pro-choice’. In her Blog (comments section), Mrs Anderson explains that they are not against medical intervention:

    “We have never been against medical treatment. The Bible is very clear that “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.” This has always been our stand. We have often in the past sought ought medical treatment for anything outside our scope of home remedies for mild illnesses. We strongly believe in and support measures that restore and maintain health.

    However, that does not mean that we condone of any and all available medical procedures. Just because we believe in trying to save the life of the unborn, does not mean we also embrace artificial reproductive technology that is cavalier about creating and destroying life. Any technological advances can be used for evil, or for good. Other times, medicine can be used ignorantly, and cause more harm than good without trying to do so. ”

    No one should be able to ‘decide for themselves’ to kill an unborn child for reasons like 15 minutes of fame (Emily Letts), sex selection, “not the right tor a child’, “cannot afford a child” or any number of other reasons not having anything to do with the life of the mother or life of another unborn child being truly endangered from the pregnancy.

  • Independent Thinker

    Lolly summed the issue at hand up very well. Nevertheless the question remains how is what she did any different than women who have selective reduction during a pregnancy of multiples?

  • Independent Thinker

    Emily Letts is a totally separate issue and really has nothing to do with this situation.

  • myintx

    You’re the one who brought up abortion. Seemed to me you were pushing ‘choice’. Emily Letts exercised her so-called freedom of choice. Do you want to allow abortion only when medically necessary to save a woman’s life or the life of another baby in the case of multiples?

  • myintx

    From what I read at CNN, doctors initially didn’t know the unborn child was non-viable, but Munoz wanted the plug pulled anyway!!! “Doctors told the family it has a heartbeat in a normal range, Erick Munoz told WFAA, and at 24 weeks they may know more about its viability.”
    Mrs. Munoz was dead. Honoring her so-called ‘wishes’ should have taken a backseat to saving a human beings life, at least until doctors determined the unborn child wouldn’t have made it. Besides, Mr. Munoz NEVER said they talked about Mrs. Munoz being brain dead and pregnant. That would be a game changer for many. I’m sure if they had specifically discussed that case he would have mentioned it during one of his interviews with the press.

  • myintx

    Most abortions have nothing to do with aborting unhealthy unborn children to reduce infant mortality. Most abortions shouldn’t even be considered health care as they are not done for health reasons, they are done to intentionally kill an unborn child for convenience.

    And, in her blog comments she explained that she is not against medicine.

  • myintx

    There have been cases before where fetal deformities were misdiagnosed, the mother carried the pregnancy anyway despite the diagnosis and gave birth to a healthier than expected baby. It’s rare, but it does happen, so I do not fault the pro-life community that wanted to give Mr. Munoz’ unborn daughter a chance despite the diagnosis.

    There was no ‘experimenting’ done on her body – just an attempt to save the life of her unborn daughter.

  • myintx

    Emily’s abortion put to rest the pro-aborts claims that abortion is always a gut-wrenching decision made after all other options have been ruled out.

  • tulips

    It boils down to this, really. They object to individuals taking ~agency~ and making ~decisions~ rather than passively accepting the biological default because apparently biological default = God’s will. Until, it isn’t. It’s God’s will when a 12 year old gets pregnant, but God was apparently asleep at the switch when those microbes colonized inconveniently in your throat. So go ahead and fix it. With antibiotics. Oh the irony. Because evolution. The problem is the inconsistency.

  • tulips

    Straw man. The pro choice position makes no assertions wrt “gut wrench” …that is a pro life position. You know, the one that goes it was a hard emotionally gut wrenching decision that she did/will/must regret secretly or not forevermore.

  • tulips

    Ooooh look…it’s the spot where you accidentally reveal that you yourself distinguish between the value of life wrt a fetus compared with an infant. Which of my children shall I save if it comes to a choice…*drums finger tips on chin*…the one that with the best odds of a full and productive life for the win! How ablest of you. The answer consistent with the belief that God has specifically and deliberately designed the biology involved in this pregnancy is that it’s not your decision to make. If one or both of these twins die…and their mother of course…why there’s a reason for it that we aren’t privy to. Burns a little doesn’t it? Getting your real beliefs outed like that.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    But she has stated in past blog postings about how the doctor is the last option and how too many worship modern medicine.

  • Trollface McGee

    And her other blog posts explain that she is against medicine. She condemns procedures done by other women which are quite similar to hers. She and her husband condemn BC as well as a myriad of medicines and herbs. Her husband preaches that mental illness shouldn’t be treated with drugs.
    Furthermore, her husband has said that a woman should not be treated by a male gynaecologist and she and her husband both believe that women should not be doctors or scientists – all views that compromise the ability of people to get care and for there to be new developments in science and medicine.
    Abortions do not reduce infant mortality, because there is no infant. They do reduce maternal mortality because they are less risky than a pregnancy. And there is no such thing as an unborn child, children are by definition born.
    What is or isn’t healthcare should be between a woman and her doctor, not a politician, not the Andersons and certainly not you.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    “No one should be able to ‘decide for themselves’ to kill an unborn child for reasons like 15 minutes of fame (Emily Letts), sex selection, “not the right tor a child’, “cannot afford a child” or any number of other reasons not having anything to do with the life of the mother or life of another unborn child being truly endangered from the pregnancy.”

    Regardless of what you think of abortion it is the law of the land and a personal choice for each woman to make. You cannot legislate morality.

    I hate abortion, but I hate the idea of telling someone else what they can and cannot do with their body even more. I don’t have to live with their consequences, they do. That’s how freedom works.

  • Trollface McGee

    We deny organ transplants because someone may have inadvertently failed to sign the organ donation box at the DMV. We give families final choice over where and how their dead relatives organs go. We allow a family to deny life to many people when those organs are just going to rot in the ground. Why? Because we believe in bodily autonomy, even for the dead, unless they have a vagina.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    The Pro Life people are going about it all wrong. Blaming, stone throwing, slut shaming will never convince anyone that they shouldn’t exercise their freedom over their own bodies.

    If the Pro Life folks were more concerned with what happens to those children after they are born, helping, love and supportive of the single gals and others that end up not aborting their babies it would make a greater impact. There’s no love in the Pro Life movement, just hatred and blaming.

  • myintx

    Oh please.. there’s even a book entitled “A Difficult Decision: A Compassionate Book About Abortion”… nothing compassionate about killing an unborn child, but whatever.

  • myintx

    Maybe this was the last option for her.

  • myintx

    It’s unknown if abortion is less risky than a pregnancy. Women have died from abortions. Women have gotten infections from the abortions and later died from those infections. Many abortions go unreported, and complications from them would go unreported too… Mandatory sterilization would reduce infant mortality. Want to go that route?
    So, if a mentally unstable woman finds a ‘doctor’ that agrees with her that she should kill her newborn, is that OK because the decision was between her and her doctor? Quit hiding behind the ‘medical decision’ carp. Unless a woman’s life is truly endangered from the pregnancy, abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child. Most often the decision to kill is made by the woman. The doctor just asks her to leave a check at the counter before he kills her unborn child.

  • myintx

    You absolutely CAN legislate morality. We do it all the time: Post viability abortion laws. Laws saying parents cannot kill their newborns, etc. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-silliest-argument-ever-is-one-you-hear-all-the-time

    Slavery was ‘law of the land’ for a long time. So was “Separate but Equal”. Laws can be changed. Bad Supreme Court decisions can be overturned. Roe V Wade should be overturned.
    When a woman has an abortion, she isn’t really doing something to ‘her body’, she is doing something to the body of another human being – i.e. killing it. We tell women they cannot kill their unborn child after viability (in most states, with exceptions). An unborn child is a human being before and after viability. It shouldn’t be killed at either time.
    Unless a life is truly endangered from the pregnancy, no one should have the “freedom” to kill their unborn child. No one.

  • myintx

    There is no such thing as full bodily autonomy… Post-viability abortion laws, laws against prostitution, laws against drug use, etc. Besides, parents have a responsibility for their offspring. That responsibility should start when their offspring is created – at fertilization. No one should have a right to kill their unborn child, unless their life is truly endangered from the pregnancy. Mrs. Munoz’ life wasn’t endangered because she was already dead. If she had been in a coma the law would have protected her unborn child. It should have covered brain death too. That was an oversight in the law.

  • myintx

    No it wasn’t safe. An unborn child died. She had a family. She chose to kill her unborn son or daughter for 15 minutes of fame. That’s sad.

  • myintx

    ‘Their own bodies’ – nope, it’s not ‘their’ body killed in an abortion now is it?
    Catholic Charities is just one organization that helps women: http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/catholic-charities-uses-bus-to-offer-free-counseling-guidance-on-unplanned-pregnancy/25740872

    Most pro-lifers are supportive. Many volunteer time or donate money to help those less fortunate. Many want a better government – one that will work to improve the economy so that men and women can get back to work to provide for their own families.

    You’re painting with a broad brush dear Mod.

  • tulips

    There are entire seminars dedicated to singing the glory of marrying 15 year old girls to much older men they have never met. Would you consider the existence of such a variable to be representative of conservatives/prolife as a whole?
    (but whatever)

  • myintx

    Pretty sure a vast majority of pro-lifers don’t agree with 15 year olds marrying older men. Pro-choices as a group generally say that abortion is a difficult decision. Emily Letts proved that it’s not. She was giggling throughout the video.

  • myintx

    She admitted she didn’t use protection. Likely she got pregnant on purpose with a plan all along to get her 15 minutes of fame. Abortion is never safe for the unborn child. Ever.

  • myintx

    lol… you know what would fix it all. A good dose of RESPONSIBILITY. Couples should be responsible and either abstain if not in a committed relationship or use multiple forms of protection to reduce the odds of getting pregnant to less than 1% per woman per year. If every couple did that the rate of unplanned pregnancies would plummet and abortions would likely be reduced by over 90%

    Quit ‘waiting’ and encourage responsibility.

  • myintx

    Unless there is a life endangered it’s never OK to kill.

  • tulips

    Welp, she proved it wasn’t for her in any case. I’ve known several women whose abortions were not emotionally distressing. How people ~feel~ about their abortion has a lot to do with how they perceive what is happening. For someone who views an early pregnancy as an undifferentiated cell mass with no consciousness it may be no more difficult a decision that deciding to clip your fingernails. For someone having a later term abortion, or having an undesired abortion due to a medical issue, or who is conflicted about the abortion for any reason…the conflicted feelings would follow suite just as they would (and do) in say…the delivery room.

  • Independent Thinker

    Not sure that is true. Phil Robertson stated publically girls should marry at 15 or 16 and there still seems to be a massive support for Duck Dynasty thru tv ratings and merchandise sales.

  • Trollface McGee

    Actually, yes, we know abortion is less risky than a pregnancy.
    http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2012/01/23/abortion-safer-for-women-than-childbirth-study-claims
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
    http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/why-abortion-is-less-risky-than-childbirth/

    But those studies are done by ‘scientists’ and ‘doctors’ so I fully expect you to find some problem with them and anything else that contradicts your point of view.
    And if you don’t get the distinction between a zef and a newborn and a woman, then we don’t really have much to discuss. You care about life, but you don’t care about the lives lost in countries where abortion is banned or restricted to absurdity. Reality is – abortion still happens, it just becomes much more dangerous for the women and your precious zefs.

  • Trollface McGee

    Did you even read my post before you started bleating about teh baybeez?
    We allow families to deny organ donation for any reason of their dead relative even though those organs save lives. We don’t mandate parents to give their child something as simple as a blood transfusion. Those are all laws too, and they don’t just apply to full persons (those with penises) but also to the walking uteri.

  • Catherine

    That’s why I support orgs like this: http://www.allourlives.org/

    Not all pro-lifers are alike. I’ve long held the belief that (in the States anyway) the liberal/Democratic party folks are far more pro-life than the conservative Republicans ever will be. Why? Because policies that support health care and accessible education do far more to reduce abortion rates than shaming and lack of support ever will.

    Should abortion be criminalized? I don’t know. I do know that in countries where it is, poverty and maternal mortality are far higher. So that tells me that while abortion is morally wrong (to me), outlawing it is an ineffective means of ending it.

  • Catherine

    You know what else reduces abortion rates? Free contraception and health care. Look at the unwanted pregnancy rate in Scandinavian countries compared to the States.

  • Catherine

    I support LGBT rights on top of being pro-life, unfortunately I have yet to find a politician who agrees with me so I typically vote liberal.

  • myintx

    Just because someone watches a TV show it doesn’t mean they support all the views of all the stars of the show. Perhaps they don’t care or believe that people have a right to free speech. Not all gay and lesbian people boycotted Chick fil A.

  • myintx

    There are other factors at play in Scandinavian countries than just free contraception and health care. Racial make-up, morals, the general economy, etc.

    If the government has any extra money hanging around, I’d rather see it go to Vets to get healthcare than to a couple who want to have sexx..

    If parents, school teachers and society(that includes YOU)start teaching young people to take responsibility for their own actions (e.g. abstain if not in a committed relationship or save their money and get their own contraception), we’d have a lot less unplanned pregnancies in this country.

  • myintx

    Someone “who views an early pregnancy as an undifferentiated cell mass ” has been fooled by the pro-abortion movement or is in denial. An unborn child at any stage of development is a human being and should not be killed unless the woman’s health is endangered from the pregnancy.

  • Catherine

    You have no idea what contraception can cost if your insurance won’t cover it, do you?

    Making it financially difficult to get contraception is nothing more than a combination of poor-shaming and slut-shaming, two things that do NOT promote a healthy approach to sexuality or human relationships.

  • Catherine

    Do you have any facts for these statistics that you’re throwing out there?

  • myintx

    Condoms are cheap (about 3 for $2), NFP and early withdrawal are free (yes, the CDC recognizes this as a form of birth control). Use those 3 alone and the odds of
    getting pregnant can be reduced to about 1% per woman per year. Still not as effective as the condom and the pill for example, but much better than nothing. And, with the government having to watch every dime it spends, it would be much better if people took responsibility for their own actions as much as they can.

    Encouraging responsibility is not ‘shaming’.

    If the government worked harder to get people back to work it wouldn’t be ‘financially difficult’ for couples to afford contraception 🙂

  • Catherine

    Do you have any valid proof for the failure rate claims?

    Not sure where you’re finding condoms that cheaply…where I am it’s more like $5 for a three pack. And that’s if you aren’t in the one drugstore in the tiny town where the pharmacist will humiliate the hell out of anyone buying condoms (yes, I have experienced this).

  • myintx

    Walmart had them for 3 for $2.17..

    The CDC has failure rates for individual forms (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm). Simple math (and other internet searches to validate) shows rates for combinations.

  • Unless they’ve been tampered with and I can assure you that sometimes, they have been. My husband saw a kid in a WalMart go through with a needle and pierce the boxes on every box of condoms on the shelf. And because of the lack of personnel… well, it went unnoticed. Of course, this was quite a few years ago, so there’s no telling what’s going on now.

  • Catherine

    To say nothing of reproductive sabotage as a form of partner abuse…

  • Catherine

    It’d also be nice if they stopped telling kids that condoms were basically “useless” as a part of modern abstinence-only sex education. It certainly doesn’t cover things like NFP, at least it didn’t in my experience. It’d be useful to teach girls how to chart their cycles from an early age.

  • myintx

    All innocent human beings are valuable…. If there’s a fire in a burning building and a woman has 2 of her children in there in opposite ends of the building, she might have to make a difficult decision on which one to try to save first knowing she may not be able to rescue both of them… On the other hand, if a woman with 2 born children gets tired of raising 2 children and it’s more convenient to just have one, she cannot kill one of them, even IF someone told her she’d suffer mental distress if she put up her child for adoption.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Please go back on topic of the thread – if the medical care received by Zsuzsanna Anderson was appropriate or an abortion.

    No one here is going to be swayed one way or another on the topic of abortion and that’s not even the topic of the post. Cease and desist. First warning.

  • Catherine

    Precisely. Access to affordable (even better, FREE) reliable birth control has been proven to reduce abortion rates.

  • gimpi1

    OK, here’s where the rubber meets the road. When given a clear choice – provide birth-control, which that is proven to cut abortion rates – instead of saying, “Yes, let’s get right on that,” out comes the “responsibility” card. All you hedonists should just stop messing around.

    If you truly cared about fetal life, you would not let that concern stop you. You would be all in favor of contraception being as available as humanly possible. But you don’t really care about fetal life, not down deep in your soul. You want to stop people from doing things you don’t think they should. You want to see people who live in ways you disapprove of suffer. You want control.

    (Oh, by the way, on the “extra money” line; it’s generally felt in the medical establishment that money spent on birth control saves medical-care dollars down the line.)

  • gimpi1

    Does anyone know if the doctors that treated Mrs. Anderson male or female?

    I remember his rant against gynecological care being provided by men. Just curious.

  • myintx

    From dear moderator: “Please go back on topic of the thread – if the medical care received by Zsuzsanna Anderson was appropriate or an abortion.” Or, perhaps the message only applies to people she disagrees with….. 🙂

  • Trollface McGee

    From her blog it appears that she has a female gyno but the doctors that did her procedure were male but “respectful of her privacy” even though other commenters call them OB-Gyns, and I don’t see how someone could do obstetric surgery without being able to examine the area they need to operate on.

  • gimpi1

    Well, this seems to be a “heads I win, tails you lose situation. Since the Anderson’s don’t believe that men should examine women and they also don’t believe women should become doctors, finding care that doesn’t go against their beliefs sounds almost impossible. Perhaps it’s not only their distrust of doctors that they had to ignore to treat this problem?

  • Trollface McGee

    Yeah, exactly. It made me think of the situation with the Taliban – women weren’t allowed to see male doctors and were forbidden to be doctors. Which is the Anderson’s basic beliefs codified. I know I’m grateful their views aren’t law, perhaps on some level so are they.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Discussing if her care was the same as an abortion is very different than spouting your personal pro life views.

  • myintx

    I didn’t see Catherine mention ‘her care’… she was talking about birth control….

  • ILoveJellybeans

    I don’t like Zsu or her husband, and feel incredibly sorry for their children, who are being raised in such a hateful environment by parents who encourage them to say homophobic things and spout conspiracy theorist lies.
    It wasn’t an abortion though. They did the surgery to give both twins a better chance of survival, and did not intentionally cause the death of Jachin. He survived the surgery, but died a few weeks later, even with the surgery he didn’t have a good chance of making it, as he was the weaker twin, but doing the surgery gave him a better chance of survival and ensured that Boaz lived. If they didn’t do the surgery, they would be letting both die, and that would be closer to being an abortion.
    Its good they got medical care, seeing as they are usually against it, or things would have had a way worse outcome.