Are Women “Forced to Carry a Dead Baby” Due to Anti-Abortion Laws?

Are Women “Forced to Carry a Dead Baby” Due to Anti-Abortion Laws? January 27, 2019

Supporters of New York State’s Reproductive Health Act (RHA) claim it was needed because, prior to its passage, New York law required mothers “to carry dead babies to term” or similar verbiage. Here are some examples of these claims that I’ve seen on Facebook:

There are online articles making this claim as well. One example is this piece on Upworthy: “It is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.” In the article, they claim:

I’ve heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

Let’s look the first linked article that allegedly supports this claim, a piece from Vice titled, “I Went to a Catholic Hospital During My Miscarriage—And It Nearly Killed Me.”

The author states she lived in Indiana at the time of the events in question. Here is how Indiana state law defines abortion:

Sec. 1. “Abortion” means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus. The term includes abortions by surgical procedures and by abortion inducing drugs. (emphasis mine)

Already, there’s something odd about this story. Did the Catholic hospital violate state law by refusing to remove a dead fetus, as this article seems to claim? Let’s find out.

Three paragraphs in, the author says,

When I returned to the ER, I was told that I was having a miscarriage, and that the embryo had stopped growing properly at eight or nine weeks. There was no chance the pregnancy would progress, but the fetus still had a heartbeat. So, despite my worsening condition, I was told to go home and wait. (emphasis mine)

A fetus with a heartbeat is not a dead fetus. Shouldn’t the news that the fetus still has a heartbeat be a welcome one? It means there is still hope! It means that maybe the doctors are wrong that “there was no chance the pregnancy would progress,” given that they have been wrong before.

She continues a little later on,

One of my clearest memories from that day is when I heard the doctor scream, “Who the [censored] sent her home? She could have died.”

I had to have emergency surgery to remove the remaining tissue from my uterus and save my life. The same OB-GYN who gave the order to send me home was still on call when I was brought back in.

I later found out that the doctors at the hospital were not allowed to provide me with the basic care I needed in order to prevent a life-threatening condition because of the facility’s religious affiliation. Someone in my situation should have been offered dilation and curettage—a procedure that removes tissue from the uterus—or another form of miscarriage management.

Doctors are not allowed to kill a living baby just because a miscarriage MIGHT happen. An estimated 50% of miscarriages do not require a D&C, and it’s actually better for a woman to miscarry naturally, as a D&C carries its own risks and potential side effects (such as an increased risk of placenta accreta with subsequent pregnancies).

Hemorrhage such as the author experienced is a risk with any miscarriage, but it is impossible to predict. The initial doctor who saw her may have very well made an error in judgement — there are not enough facts available to determine if that was the case — but he may have judged that she would miscarry naturally on her own and have no complications, as is the case with approximately half of women who miscarry. “Expectant management” is what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends for early pregnancy loss unless there are other factors that indicate medical management is necessary, and bleeding, even heavy bleeding, on its face is not one of those factors.

She’s also wrong when she claims that the Catholic hospital was forbidden from offering miscarriage management. Per the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their document Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services:

47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

If her symptoms had indicated there was a serious risk to her life or health during her first ER visit, they could have taken immediate action, even knowing the baby was still alive.

So, the first article Upworthy offered to support this claim was wrong. It had nothing to do with a woman being forced to carry a dead baby.

Let’s look at article number two, this one from The Daily Beast titled, “Texas Forced This Woman to Deliver a Stillborn Baby.” (Um… isn’t every woman who has a stillborn baby “forced” to deliver him/her, either by nature itself or by medical intervention, whether that constitutes induced labor, C-section, or direct abortion? But I digress…)

This is the first paragraph:

Daniel and Taylor Mahaffey were 20 weeks pregnant and desperately wanted their child, but when doctors informed them a complication meant the fetus had no chance of survival, they just wanted their baby’s suffering to end. Yet because of their state’s “fetal pain” law, the married Texans say they were forced to endure a stillbirth and wait as their baby slowly died in utero.

There are several factual problems with the information offered in this paragraph. The baby had “no chance of survival” and “they just wanted their baby’s suffering to end” — that means the baby was still alive, not dead. This story has nothing to do with being forced to carry a dead fetus.

And why was the baby suffering? Pro-choicers are adamant that fetal pain is a myth perpetuated by pro-lifers — and the article itself says that in the very next line when it decries the Texas fetal pain law! So how exactly was their baby suffering if s/he could not feel pain?

The couple says they were forced to “endure a stillbirth” — well, they would have had to endure a stillbirth regardless, as I mentioned earlier, so this doesn’t really make sense. Instead of hoping that the doctors were wrong, and maybe their baby would miraculously survive — or choosing to cherish the time they had left with their dying child, no matter how long it was — they chose to frame it as being “forced […] to wait as their baby slowly died in utero.” They blame Texas HB2, which has since been overturned, for this circumstance.

The thing is, Texas HB2 had a clause specifically stipulating that the removal of a dead fetus is not considered an abortion:

(1) “Abortion” means the act of using, administering, prescribing, or otherwise providing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent  to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman and with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the woman’s unborn child. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:
(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;
(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; (emphasis mine)
(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy; or
(D) treat a maternal disease or illness for which a prescribed drug, medicine, or other substance is indicated.

It also said:

Sec. 171.046. EXCEPTIONS. (a) The prohibitions and requirements under Sections 171.043, 171.044, and 171.045(b) do not apply to an abortion performed if there exists a condition that, in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the woman that, to avert the woman’s death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition, it necessitates, as applicable:
(1) the immediate abortion of her pregnancy without the delay necessary to determine the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child;
(2) the abortion of her pregnancy even though the post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 or more weeks; or
(3) the use of a method of abortion other than a method described by Section 171.045(b).

This was indeed an agonizing experience for them, and I’m genuinely sorry they had to go through it. However, Taylor Mahaffey was not dying or, at that time, physically threatened by the impending miscarriage, and their son, Fox, was fighting desperately to stay with them. His amniotic sac was intact, so this wasn’t a PPROM issue.

What if he’d continued to survive for several more weeks? At 24 weeks, he would have had a decent chance at survival outside the womb. In fact, babies as young as 21 weeks have been saved in the United States — in Texas, no less. Fox Mahaffey was almost at 21 weeks. Although hope was slim, it wasn’t non-existent. Daniel Mahaffey even states that they spent the time while they were waiting “praying for a miracle.” Were the doctors and the state of Texas wrong in holding out hope that this baby could have survived?

So far, the evidence offered by Upworthy fails to demonstrate that women are “forced to carry a dead baby” by anti-abortion laws.

What Do Other State Laws Say?

Let’s look at the laws of other states; specifically, ones that have the heaviest restrictions on abortion.


Iowa defines abortion as “the termination of a human pregnancy with the intent other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus” (emphasis mine).


Mississippi defines abortion as “the use or prescription of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device with the intent to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy for reasons other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the unborn human being, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn human being” (emphasis mine).


Lousiana’s law says (emphasis mine):

§1061.9. Definitions

As used in R.S. 40:1061.8 through 1061.29, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) “Abortion” or “induced abortion” means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child. Such use, prescription, or means is not an abortion if done with the intent to:

(a) Save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child.

(b) Remove a dead unborn child or induce delivery of the uterine contents in case of a positive diagnosis, certified in writing in the woman’s medical record along with the results of an obstetric ultrasound test, that the pregnancy has ended or is in the unavoidable and untreatable process of ending due to spontaneous miscarriage, also known in medical terminology as spontaneous abortion, missed abortion, inevitable abortion, incomplete abortion, or septic abortion.


Kentucky’s state law defines abortion as: “the use of any means whatsoever to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with intent to cause fetal death” (emphasis mine).

If fetal death has already occurred (see the linked definition), it isn’t an induced abortion, and thus is not prohibited.


Missouri law says (emphasis mine):

  188.015. Definitions. — As used in this chapter, the following terms mean:

(1) “Abortion”:

(a) The act of using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or any other means or substance with the intent to destroy the life of an embryo or fetus in his or her mother’s womb; or

(b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead or dying unborn child;


Arkansas defines abortion as “the intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead or dying fetus” (emphasis mine).


Tennessee’s health code defines “induced termination of pregnancy” (which seems to be how they define abortion for statistical purposes) as follows: “the intentional termination of pregnancy with the intention other than to produce a live-born infant or to remove a dead fetus” (emphasis mine).

North Dakota

North Dakota’s abortion law states (emphasis mine):

14-02.1-02. Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
1. “Abortion” means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable intrauterine pregnancy of a woman, including the elimination of one or more unborn children in a multifetal pregnancy, with knowledge that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child. Such use, prescription, or means is not an abortion if done with the intent to:
a. Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child;
b. Remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; or
c. Treat a woman for an ectopic pregnancy.

What About New York State?

Did New York State previously have laws that forced a woman to “carry a dead baby”? Not according to The previous law prohibited abortion after 24 weeks even if the fetus was “unviable.”

“Unviable” does not mean “dead.” It means “unable to live outside the womb.” The baby was still alive within the mother’s womb; s/he was, however, not expected to live long after birth. A woman wasn’t denied removal of a dead fetus; she was simply denied the “right” to kill a living one. Sadly, that has now changed, and abortion is legal at any stage of gestation for any reason.

Please don’t bother to comment to tell me that I’m wrong and abortion is prohibited unless needed to preserve the “life or health” of the mother. I’ve read the law, and I know that the definition of health being used — the one found in Doe v Bolton — is so vague as to be meaningless, and the abortion practitioner who benefits financially from the abortion is the one to make that judgement call. In other words, no “health” reason will ever be judged insufficient at any stage.


The evidence I’ve provided proves without question that even the U.S. states with the most restrictive abortion laws each have provisions making an exception in the case of missed miscarriage, fetal death, or fetal demise.

This is a very personal subject for me because I’ve experienced missed miscarriage three times, all at 12 weeks; once in North Dakota and twice in Arizona. I’ve written about my experiences here and here. My child Jude, lost on October 28, 2015, is pictured in the featured image on this piece; an ultrasound at 12 weeks during a routine prenatal appointment was the one at which we learned of his/her death.

I decided to write this article because I am sick and tired of abortion “rights” advocates telling lies to advance their agenda. It is not right to use my personal pain and tragedy, as well as the pain and tragedy of others who’ve suffered similar losses, to push for the “right” to kill a healthy unborn child. If you are doing this, please stop. If you are sick of others claiming this, please share.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ame

    Thank you so much for taking the time to investigate the laws of various states and to clarify differences between miscarriage, abortion, fetal death, and fetal demise. New York has made unborn children an enemy of women.

  • SpokenMind

    What strikes me about these laws is that dead unborns can be removed, which means the law acknowledges they were once alive.

  • Chris Allen

    I’m sorry for what you suffered, but in how you’re putting this out there, you’re acting as though everyone’s circumstances are like yours. Plus, there’s some fallacies you’re promoting. You state:

    “It is not right to use my personal pain and tragedy, as well as the pain and tragedy of others who’ve suffered similar losses, to push for the “right” to kill a healthy unborn child. If you are doing this, please stop. If you are sick of others claiming this, please share.”

    First, these are NOT “healthy children,” when the fetus is severely deformed to be unviable. And if the pregnancy is going to kill the mother, it will also kill the fetus.

    As to the “using your personal pain,” Right back at you. You are using MY personal pain and tragedy to fuel YOUR argument—so now where does that leave us?

    I was FIVE MONTHS into a very wanted pregnancy, one we didn’t think we’d ever have, because he’d been told since childhood that his chance of having children was miniscule. It was our first ultrasound. The tech got very quiet. She ran the test again. She left the room came back with the doctor, who ran it a third time.

    Finally they told us: there is no fetal heartbeat.

    We were devastated.

    The doctor explained that sometimes when a miscarriage occurs, the body doesn’t release and expel the uterine contents… and though I *could* “wait and see” if my body would eventually expel it, the longer it was in there, the more likely I would develop a septic infection that I could die from.

    A couple days later I went into the hospital and had a D&C. I had two little girls and a loving husband and lots of other people that, if I died, I would leave a big hole in their lives. “Waiting for it to expel naturally” would be risking my life.

    Perhaps you’ve heard about the woman in Ireland, who already *had* a septic infection that was killing both her and her fetus… and even though Irish law *allowed* doctors to do an abortion under those circumstances, none of the doctors or hospitals would: they all feared that they would be labeled as having done an abortion, and would be liable by law… because the fetus in her case still had a heartbeat.

    She was forced to wait for the fetal heartbeat to stop before they would do anything. In the meantime they tried treating her with antibiotics, to no avail—it was like giving her water, not medicine. After more than a week of excruciating pain from the infection, the woman died. IF they had done an abortion right away, when she presented with back pain and fever and they gave the diagnosis of septic infection, she might have lived—because at that point it had not spread to her whole body. The infection in her uterus and in her fetus was the *source* of that infection. And so she died.

    That could have been me. That could have been many women denied medical abortions by doctors and hospitals that refuse to use exceptions to the law. (You assume if there’s an exception, it will automatically be used… but obviously, some doctors and/or hospitals still *won’t*, and will deny vital care to a woman in those circumstances.)

    Unlike that woman, I lived… and was able to once again, amazingly, get pregnant… and this time, it went well. Our son would not exist, had I been denied the abortion I needed before, and had died from septic infection (which is common: when you have dead/dying tissue inside your body, septicemia is a very likely outcome).

    And yet, a few years later in my home state, a lawmaker stood on the legislative floor and said, regarding an anti-abortion bill he wanted passed, that “a fetus dying happens to farm animals all the time, and we just wait to see whether or not the animal survives it; if it does, it’s God’s will.” I’ve never heard such a callous thing in my life as what that man said.

    You also put forth the idea that “so long as there’s a heartbeat, there’s hope.” Do you say that to cancer patients who cannot get treatment for their cancer, as the cancer slowly kills them? “You’re heart’s still beating, so there’s hope! Something miraculous might occur! But sorry, we can’t give you treatment—it would violate our religious beliefs.”

    Strange things do occur at times in nature—an unbroken egg driven into a tree trunk by a tornado, for instance… but when 99.99% of the time, a tornado that picks up an egg and flings it against a tree *breaks the egg*, it’s a bit ridiculous to hope that it won’t break. It’s even worse when, in the case of a woman whose life is threatened by a pregnancy, you want doctors to wait until a fetal heartbeat is no more, before trying to save the woman’s life—forcing 99 women to die just because in *one* case, a “miracle” may happen and a fetus recover, is not humane. Nor logical. Nor common medical sense. Ditto for when a pregnancy is declared “unviable.” Forcing a woman to carry a dying fetus is cruel, AND she may end up contracting a septic infection.

    And yes, there are plenty of examples out there of women who *were* carrying a dead fetus with no heartbeat, who were forced to travel to another state (just recently saw the account of a woman from from New York this happened to), in order to get the dead fetus and other material aborted. Not everyone can *afford* to travel out of state for something like this, and if people like you had your way, there would BE no state a woman could travel to for this—which means, only the wealthier people could afford it, by flying out of the country to a country that would… leaving the poorer women to risk septicemia and death.

    So, you put your pain out there as a “don’t use my pain as an excuse to argue for later term abortions!”—so I’m sure you don’t mind me putting MY pain out there and telling YOU, “don’t deny MY pain and MY experiences in your effort to deny other women the abortion I needed to save my life!”

  • ve6

    Almost 70% of urban black NY pregnancies are ended in abortion. I can’t help but think this is worth of the Third Reich eugenics.

  • Thank you for your courage in posting this. It can’t have been easy.

  • Ame


  • Chari McCauley

    Have you looked into the story of the twins Eva Mozes Kor and her sister? They survived…I guess…the “Twin Experiments”; talk about life being worse than fiction. Eva’s sister died…eventually…from giving birth to her own children…. The “experiments” implanted (by the one they call the “Angel of Death) her with little time-bombs that would alter everything…if she ever gave birth.

    Evil does not always hide behind religion.

  • “All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men [or women] to do nothing.”

  • Thank you for this very educational article.

  • swbarnes2

    “Who the [censored] sent her home? She could have died.”

    That really gives you no pause at all?

    This woman might have lost 50 years of her life all to incubate a fetus for 12 more hours.

    That is a mandate you are okay with forcing on every single women who walks into the doors of a Catholic hospital, even if she’s not Catholic?

  • Please read the article before commenting on it. Thanks!

  • swbarnes2

    I did. You followed that quote with essentially with “Why don’t doctors understand that they have to force women to risk death if their doomed fetus is not quite dead yet? Why, the mother might be healthier risking death longer!”

  • P. McCoy

    How is that when the Women made their OWN decisions? If they were coerced by someone else well legal aid is scarce and most Black Women don’t have the deep financial pockets needed to get lawyers which would protect them from those who would force or pressure them into having an abortion. If the pressures however, are due to poverty, then the stance of so called pro lifers or really forced birthers is either A: it is their fault for having sex, ie; they’re
    irresponsible or B: if they give birth, then there is the
    unwillingness, resentment and refusal by the forced birthers to advocate to raise taxes
    to create the safety nets in health, mother and childcare which would enable these Women to raise their children in peace and not abject poverty .

    OR are you saying that as a race Blacks can’t think for themselves? I can ONLY IMAGINE how many slave girls and Women would have wished for abortion to have been safe and legal in the times of slavery after finding themselves pregnant from the ongoing rapes committed by the Slavemaster, his male relatives or any Male that forced upon helpless slave Women!

  • Ricki W.

    In the Texas case, you seem to have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Your comment about the title of the article saying Texas forced her to deliver a stillborn, you saying of course she had to deliver a stillborn, how else do you get the stillborn out(or something to that effect, not going back to find exact quote…)is ridiculous. You didn’t understand what happened. Her baby was going to die, it was a healthy fetus, but she went into labor too early and her water broke and there was no amniotic fluid left, nothing they could do to stop him from being born…except then labor stalled. At the point, it didn’t matter, no amniotic fluid, baby already starting come out her cervix( but not enough)..what the parents wanted to do, what the doctors felt would be the best and most humane thing to do, would be to induce labor back up and deliver their son and let them hold him and love on him and give him palliative care until he naturally passed(as it was too early for him to be viable). But they didn’t do that, because Texas law calls that an abortion, and she was past the legal cutoff for an abortion. So they had to send her home to wait until labor started back up naturally..while waiting, she had to feel her baby struggling, caught in her cervix until he died. Only after his horrific death struggling inside her with no amniotic fluid, were they able to induce labor. So yes, the Texas abortion laws absolutely forced her to deliver a stillborn who had an awful horrific death, instead of allowing the parents and doctors to give him a painless death in the arms of his parents.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    Why would this article take courage to post? I disagree with the author’s assumptions, but on a first run-through, the author hasn’t overtly lied like anti-abortion activists do so often. And it is only a segment of the anti-abortion crowd who engage in terrorism; no one else does that over this issue.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    “It is not right to use my personal pain and tragedy, as well as the pain and tragedy of others who’ve suffered similar losses, to push for the “right” to kill a healthy unborn child.”

    I’m sorry for your experiences, but no one has used your personal pain and tragedy. It is you who are doing that to advance your own agenda, as is your right. You actually have a valid point in the article, in that pro-choice advocates have apparently used terms inaccurately. Don’t undermine the few valid points anti-abortion activists have by deceptively turning it into a narrative about you.

  • You apparently didn’t make it to the conclusion: “This is a very personal subject for me because I’ve experienced missed miscarriage three times”.

    That is where the courage comes from. She’s not talking out of some theory- she’s lived it herself.

    And if you don’t consider the genocide of 60 million viable human beings terrorism, I can’t help your lack of understanding.

  • Are you saying that as a race, black women are always helpless and need government support to have children?

  • Maine_Skeptic

    ‘You apparently didn’t make it to the conclusion: “This is a very personal subject for me because I’ve experienced missed miscarriage three times”.’

    I’m sorry she’s suffered, but that doesn’t mean this story takes courage, and I think you know that.

    As for genocide, your comparison belittles the suffering of actual feeling, thinking people. I used to be anti-abortion myself, so I understand that if you think abortion is murder, it’s easy to let yourself abandon all other considerations. The problem is that you’re being lied to and manipulated, and if you don’t start questioning the ease with which you ignore facts, you’re vulnerable to inflicting atrocities yourself.

  • All suffering, all life, takes courage. You lack it because you want to eliminate suffering by eliminating the people that suffer.

    A life is still worth living even with suffering in it. I am not willing to claim that the unwanted, whether unborn or terminally ill (both are legal to kill in my state) are worthy of the death penalty merely because they suffer.

    Suffering isn’t an atrocity- it is a life of heroic virtue to be celebrated.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    “All suffering, all life, takes courage. You lack it because you want to eliminate suffering by eliminating the people that suffer.”

    Neither of those sentences is true, and I don’t know where you came up with them. I do know it had nothing to do with this conversation.

    Suffering can be met with courage, but there’s nothing noble about suffering itself. If you think there is, that would imply that you seek to maximize suffering. Do you?

  • The reason for the genocide of the unwanted (whether in abortion or euthanasia form) is the elimination of other people’s suffering by eliminating the other people. This is true whether it is for economic or medical reasons, the end result is the same. It is a eugenics attempt to improve the species by eliminating traits you do not like.

    That part is quite obvious, so I’m not sure why you think it has nothing to do with this conversation.

    There is no need to seek to maximize suffering- life does just fine at creating suffering. It should be expected, not rejected. How you face it is what creates the nobility- or the shame.

  • P. McCoy

    No. Not any more helpless than White Women. The majority of Welfare recipients are White and from Red States.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    “The reason for the genocide of the unwanted (whether in abortion or euthanasia form)…”

    Quit making unjustified comparisons, and quit trivializing genocide.

    “It is a eugenics attempt to improve the species by eliminating traits you do not like. That part is quite obvious…”

    Why does it seem obvious to you that a woman choosing an abortion is committing genocide? Why does it seem obvious to you that she is doing so in an attempt to eliminate “unwanted traits” from an entire species?

  • With 60 million dead, I don’t consider the genocide of the unwanted to be anything close to trivial- at all. Why are YOU trivializing abortion and euthanasia away from the obvious genocide that it is?

    “Why does it seem obvious to you that a woman choosing an abortion is committing genocide?”

    I do not blame the woman alone, she’s usually operating under such incorrect information to make her “choice” completely meaningless. But the act of abortion itself has been tied to genocide for well over a century.

    “Why does it seem obvious to you that she is doing so in an attempt to eliminate “unwanted traits” from an entire species?”

    Because there is no other reason to abort, than because one is prejudiced against the next generation to the point of murder.

  • And thus, governmental support would not likely help the strong racist trait in abortion, would it?

    If you watch only one three hour movie about being black in America this Black History Month, make it this one:

  • Sabine

    Her water did not break until at the very end when she did finally go into labor.

    “After four days in and out of the hospital, the bag of waters surrounding their baby burst and Taylor delivered Fox. “One nice thing is we got to hold him,” Daniel said. “That’s the only silver lining.””

  • Sabine

    Medical errors account for around 250,000 deaths a year in America. I am more inclined to believe that this woman’s case was mishandled as so many others are and it really has nothing to do with the legality of abortion. It could well be exactly as JoAnna described.

  • Ricki W.

    Yes, you’re right, my mistake. But that changes nothing about it though, there was absolutely no good reason they couldn’t have aborted since they knew there was no way the baby was going to survive anyway, so why not abort the pregnancy and allow the parents a few moments with their son while he was alive, to hold him and comfort him while he passed, instead of forcing her to spend days feeling her son struggling while going through a horrific death inside her? His comment i objected to was idiotic, saying “of course she gave birth to a still born, how else would you get a still born out”…um, they could have delivered him when he was still alive, that’s how. But I guess anti-choicers preferred he die struggling, stuck, than peacefully with palliative care in his parents arms.

  • fractal

    Considering the way your ilk talk about “lazy welfare mamas”, this doesn’t surprise me.

    Black women can and do decide for themselves if they want an abortion.
    No one is chasing them down the street, or proselytizing abortion to them.
    This tact of calling abortion racist, is blatantly racist itself.

  • fractal

    Men cause pregnancy.
    They are the ones that squirt into the vagina.
    Let’s legislate the PENIS for a change.
    $25,000 fine paid to the woman, when a man gets a woman preggers when she doesn’t want to be.
    Plus a vasectomy.

    In the meantime—
    Risking the health of a woman, because a fetus isn’t QUITE DEAD YET, is barbaric.
    All sorts of terrible things can happen when pregnancies begin to go wrong, and JoAnna certainly doesn’t seem to understand the medical issues.

    Neither does she have any real compassion for a suffering fetus, who is doomed to die or be badly damaged.
    I bet she wouldn’t treat her suffering dog the way she treats a fetus who is anacephalic.

    Usually, when the fetus is a mess, the best outcome is for the parents to try again for a healthier outcome, and put the damaged fetus out of its misery.

  • southern feminist

    no, it’s not genocide – genocide is defined as the systematic extermination of a demographic with similar characteristics. abortion has existed as long as pregnancy has existed. ancient romans practiced it; even the catholic church’s revered thomas aquinas stated that terminating early pregnancies (before the “quickening”) was acceptable. comparing abortion to the holocaust or slavery is offensive at its best and incredibly ignorant at its worst. you’re comparing actual sentient beings to something that literally cannot live on its own. you’re comparing psychological trauma of the worst kind to something without a fully formed central nervous system and is literally the size of an american quarter. our bodies are not political bargaining chips. and there is nothing noble about suffering, actual suffering – the fact that you think that there is nothing worse than death conveys that you either lead a charmed life or you or simply not a rational person.

  • The unwanted have one similar characteristic- their country, their families, have abandoned them. Who is more deserving of our pity, our support, than a person who has recieved such hatred? What ethnicity has suffered more than the unwanted?

    You were born. Check your privilege, bigot.