[–] [Deleted] 14 points Edited

I'd really like to believe that Republicans will see what should have been a very easy win for them go south as a sign that their anti-abortion bullsh*t is not, and will never be, popular. Mostly I just seem them calling women unmarried hags and baby killing sluts. I don't care about the GOP at all and have many issues with them beyond their anti-choice stance, but they were warned by Kansas earlier this year that their stance was unpopular and did nothing to change, which was an idiotic move.

Republicans have no issues with killing already living children in foreign countries (actually, neither do Democrats) so they're delusional if they think anyone buys their stance as anything more than trying to control women.

When they're ready to give up their assault rifles to protect children, maybe I'll start to believe they actually care about children.

I'm tired of hearing about their violence towards children.

[–] Free_Metis [OP] 15 points Edited

Montana voters reject ‘born alive’ abortion referendum


HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana voters have rejected a legislative referendum that raised the prospect of criminal charges for health care providers unless they take “all medically appropriate and reasonable actions to preserve the life” of an infant born alive, including after an attempted abortion.

Health care professionals and other opponents argued the proposal could rob parents of precious time with infants born with incurable medical issues if doctors are forced to attempt treatment.

“Today’s win sends a clear message to state leadership: Montanans demand our right to make private health care decisions for ourselves and our families with the help of our trusted medical teams — and without interference from politicians,” Hillary-Anne Crosby, a spokesperson for an organization called Compassion for Montana Families that opposed the measure, said in a statement Thursday.

The outcome comes after a series of wins for abortion rights supporters in states around the country where abortion was directly on the ballot during the midterm elections. Voters enshrined abortion protections into state constitutions in Michigan, California and Vermont. They also voted down an anti-abortion constitutional amendment in conservative Kentucky, just as voters did in Kansas in August.

Supporters said the proposed Montana law was meant to prevent the killing of infants outside the womb in the rare occurrence of a failed abortion, something that is already is illegal. Penalties for violating the proposed law would have included up to $50,000 in fines and up to 20 years in prison.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Matt Regier of Kalispell, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment. He has said that taking extreme measures to save the life of an infant with fatal deformities “is not medically reasonable.”

However, the referendum did not specifically create the option for parents to decline such care, opponents noted.

At least half of U.S. states have similar post-abortion born-alive laws in place, according to Americans United for Life, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that opposes abortion, aid in dying and infant stem cell research.

“This initiative would have criminalized doctors, nurses and other health care workers for providing compassionate care for infants, and, in doing so, overridden the decision-making of Montana parents,” said a statement from Lauren Wilson of the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

If our reproductive rights have to be left to the states, then it needs to be on the ballot NOW for all 50 states. Trigger laws from 10 years ago are outdated and undemocratic.

Genuinely interested and without any agenda- what does happen to those born alive after an abortion procedure? What do medical staff do?

90% of abortions happen before 10 weeks. Later abortions are for medical reasons. Born alive after an abortion is some crap they made up.

[–] VestalVirgin 4 points Edited

The anti-choicers don't seem to really understand why women have abortions, and how it works in the places where it's legal ...

For one, late abortions (for reasons other than health) aren't legal in many places where early abortions are legal, plus, when you can access an abortion easily, why wait so long? It doesn't get any easier.

So yeah. Either there's something wrong with the fetus, or the mother's life is in danger. If the latter, then there is no law needed to get doctors to save the baby's life, the mother will decide in the baby's best interest, anyways. If the former, it is only needlessly cruel to demand that doctors try and save a baby they cannot save, and whose suffering they can only prolong.

Late term abortions of unwanted pregnancies are only likely to happen in places where a woman can be at 22 weeks before she even finds an abortion provider. Which is generally the anti-choicers' fault.

Edit: Perhaps it is also thanks to males general lack of understanding of why women have abortions. They seem to think pregnancy and birth are a walk in the park, same as their own contribution to the whole process, and not realize that pregnancy and birth have an extreme impact on the mental and physical health of a woman.

Only a man could suggest that giving a baby up for adoption is the very same as not giving birth in the first place - because for him, his partner having an abortion or giving the baby up for adoption IS pretty much the same.

So the anti-choicers apparently delude themselves into thinking that women have abortion just to be evil, and would OF COURSE want to murder a perfectly healthy baby AFTER giving birth.

They must be fans of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, one character Charlie Kelly's mother had an abortuin when she was pregnant with him "but it didnt take" and he was born anyway

First of all, I'm sorry you felt you had to add that disclaimer to your question. There is no harm in seeking the facts. This is a medical procedure and we should be allowed to ask how it is performed, what the risks are, the statistics, etc.

Second, I find it difficult to locate detailed and accurate information regarding abortions (due to the proliferation of false or misleading claims), but I did my best to find some for you. Others may be able to elaborate.

First, in terms of a baby’s viability — the ability to survive outside the womb — one 2015 study in the New England Journal of Medicine on preterm births said: “Active [lifesaving] intervention for infants born before 22 weeks of gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.” The study noted the “extremely difficult” decision on whether to use treatment for infants “born near the limit of viability,” saying that while in some cases treatment is clearly indicated or not, “in many cases, it is unclear whether treatment is in the infant’s best interest.”

The study looked at the cases of 4,987 infants “without congenital anomalies,” or birth defects, born before 27 weeks gestation. It found that 5.1 percent of babies born at 22 weeks gestational age survived and 3.4 percent survived “without severe impairment.” Several weeks further into gestation, at 26 weeks, 81.4 percent of babies survived, 75.6 percent without severe impairment.

Abortions in such later stages of pregnancies (which typically are 38 to 42 weeks full term) could be performed because of congenital anomalies, but that study provides some sense of when a fetus without birth defects could be viable and when decisions on medical interventions could be made.

In looking at the data, the CDC found some cases where it was unclear whether a pregnancy termination was induced or spontaneous. In such cases, if congenital anomalies and maternal complications also were involved, the CDC assumed those were spontaneous terminations, due to the “strong association between severe congenital anomalies or maternal complications and premature labor and birth.” In other words, the CDC assumed such cases were premature labor as opposed to a decision to induce labor or end the pregnancy.

So, from what I can gather, it depends on the situation, but generally, the abortions performed at a late enough stage that could result in an accidental live birth are usually for reasons of a congenital abnormality that would mean the baby will not survive even if the pregnancy had gone to full term. In those cases, the doctors shouldn't perform any attempts to save the fetus. It would make no sense for them to try.


Thank you both for the detailed and easy to understand breakdown. I don’t live in the US so these sort of things are not discussed in our public discourse as abortion is our legal right and there is no reasonable possibility of that being changed. Currently where we are at in the debate is whether “protesters/prayer parties” should be allowed near clinics. The overwhelming majority say no and there are local restrictions in particularly problematic areas whereby they can’t come within a certain distance of clinics. It’s so interesting how different the debate is within a relatively similar culture.

As noted by the thorough comment already provided, abortions being performed late enough for this even to be a question are invariably being performed due to serious problems with the fetus or a situation with the mother where it is medically impossible to deliver the baby alive.

If it's a situation where the fetus is fine but the mother's life is in danger, then the stage of development is most often what decides whether an attempt will be made to save the life of the baby after it is delivered.

My waters broke at 24 weeks and I was told that so early in pregnancy it is the parents' choice whether doctors will attempt life-saving measures, because the prognosis at that stage was so grim. Some parents choose palliative care only and allow their child to pass away (which happens within minutes at that stage).

The one thing that complicates things a bit, though, is that babies born at earlier and earlier gestational ages are surviving thanks to advances in medicine. In the past, a baby born at my gestation would have likely died, but now it's pretty much guaranteed that the baby will survive with proper care. And the record for the most premature baby keeps changing. I think the current record is 21 weeks.

But of course I agree that the whole "partial birth abortion" thing is just ridiculous because that's not actually what happens and it's just a way for the GOP to scare people into giving them votes.