Strollerderby : medical malpractice

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

JeanneSager — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:27:00 GMT

Why Texas? Why?

Do you really think women who are headed in to have an abortion are all happy-go-lucky sorts who have no idea what they're getting into?

Because leading members of Texas' GOP are sponsoring a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that's not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

According to the bill, the "pregnant woman may choose not to view the materials or avert her eyes." How sweet. If that's an option, how about just skipping the whole charade and letting women get on with it?

Its supporters have made clear they are looking to reduce abortion numbers, but they're also being careful throw a little "we're helping to cut down on medical malpractice" spin in there.

"I think that this bill will protect women from being at the hands of a doctor who is not performing best practices," study author Republican Sen. Dan Patrick said. But he's certainly sticking with the party line - he goes on to say, "secondly, it may change the thinking of that woman if she decides to look at that ultrasound, to hear that heart beat."

This move is right up there with North Dakota's recent declaration that "personhood" is achieved at conception. Neither directly reverses Roe v. Wade, but they skirt the rights of a woman being trumped by that of an unborn fetus. As my colleague Kate recently pointed out, the right-to-life movement often neglects the idea that there is life AFTER birth.

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman's mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she's been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; no matter the pain it inflicts.

Did these guys read the much-talked about Glamour piece on women who've gone through an abortion?

"In a perfect world, no woman would ever need to end a pregnancy," Liz Welch said just last month. "But in reality, one in three women will have at least one abortion by the time she is 45, and these women run the gamut of ages, races, backgrounds and beliefs."

So Texas, just to give you an update women might not feel guilty or even wrong for doing it, but it isn't an easy choice. They don't need to hear a heartbeat or be beaten over the head with literature and a detailed ultrasound description to know that.

Image: PatDollard.com

Anti-Abortion Nurse Works to Increase Abortions

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:30:00 GMT

A New Mexico woman has filed an action in federal court claiming that when she asked nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona to shorten the string on her IUD, Olona instead pulled it out (a painful procedure), and then told her it that was a good thing because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."

So the way she's against abortion is to screw up people's birth control, making it more likely they need an abortion? Swift one there.

(Current medical findings show, by the way, that IUDs prevent pregnancy primarily by creating an environment hostile to sperm and impeding their movement, not by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. Not that the previous understanding would have excused Olona's behavior, but it's useful to know.)

Olona, of course, is claiming it was an accident, and that the IUD must not have been in right, but get this: She admitted these "accidents" happen to her a lot. "Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug."

That sounds to me about as believable as "I accidently climbed on the counter and ate all the cookies." And a hell of a lot creepier.

Is physical violation, direct contradiction of patients' wishes, and ideological lectures what Rio Rancho Medical Center means by "a healing environment that takes care of the body, mind, and soul of patients and their families"? And if not, why does this woman still have a job?

Photo by Liz Henry.

More by this author:

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Catherine Skol, former Chicago cop and mother of five, is suing her OB for abusive treatment during the birth of her fifth, nine months ago. If you've heard of the case, and the arguments that she's "just suing over rudeness" and should quit it because she's going to make malpractice rates go up, I suggest you go here, and read the details of the allegations.

I don't suggest you read it if you are pregnant and about to head into a hospital delivery however.

According to the suit, defendent Scott Pierce, who was filling in for the Catherine Skol's primary OB, was so incensed that she hadn't called him before heading to the hospital (an instruction her main OB had never given her) that he decided she "deserved" pain, refused an epidural, put her in intentionally painful positions, insisted she push before she was sufficiently dilated, kept telling her she was going to hemorrhage, wouldn't give her enough anesthesia before stitching her up and told her husband to "hold her down" instead, and talked loudly and crudely on a cell phone about an abortion in the room. There's more. It's truly astounding, in a nauseating kind of way.

(Confidential to "Linka" who called Skol a wimp for complaining about not getting her pain meds: I'm no fan of routine epidurals and had my kid with none, but I would never claim to know out of context when one was appropriate. And I'd like to see you get stitches for a severe laceration on your vulva without anesthesia, not mention all that other crap.)

As much as I've heard plenty of horror stories about OBs and their attitudes, I have to say that this is a category all its own, and sounds to me like the sort of extremely aggressive behavior that arises when people are on something illegal or are having, shall we say, certain brain chemical imbalances. Not that there aren't people out there who are just that awful, but they don't generally keep a job like doctor very long.

In fact, his behavior bothers me less than the commenters who say that because she and the baby are physically healthy, she should shut up and deal. Aside from being cruel, the behavior described was dangerous. If it's anything like she described, he should have his license revoked. People sue all the time for doctors failing to prevent problems they couldn't have prevented—that's one of the reasons our c-section rate (and malpractice insurance) is so high. Here's a case where the doctor was actually in the wrong rather than just getting the blame for a tragedy. This is what lawsuits are for.

Photo by Bloomsberries.

Related Posts:

Mom Says Hospital Fouled Childbirth—Twice

More by this author:

Strollerderby : medical malpractice

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

Did Catholic Church Push This Woman To Abort?

Parents Pick Common Sense Over Religion

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Grey's Anatomy Tackles Mother Vs. Baby Issue

Anti-Abortion Nurse Works to Increase Abortions

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her