Quick lowdown on the story: An army wife's fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, which is 100% fatal. The diagnosis was confirmed by specialists with the recommendation for termination of the pregnancy. Abortion is only covered under federal insurance if the life of the woman is in danger. This is not the case with anencephaly, though it is certainly not *good* for the woman since the baby has no brain to trigger labor when the time comes. Such pregnancies last until the woman dies or a csection ends it. The treatment for anencephaly is always abortion.
The army wife and her husband only make $20K a year and cannot afford the $3K for the abortion, so they sue to have the gov't pay the bill. The first federal judge rules in favor of the wife and she has her abortion. The gov't pays but appeals the ruling.
Today the ruling was ruled on, and it was overturned. The woman now owes the federal gov't the $3K (probably plus court costs). Because Congressional law on this is clear: the federal gov't is not to pay for abortion except where the woman's life is in danger. There isn't even an exception for incest and rape. The only way to change this is an act of congress.
So, I hear this with mixed feelings. Outrage that this woman has been so clearly unfairly treated -- that no woman should be forced to carry a baby to term who has 0% chance of living. And on the other side, decidedly more uncomfortable with this feeling, appreciation that the court resisted the temptation to legislate from the bench.
(btw, my expansion on the case from what is strictly in the article is from listening to the woman's lawyer on the radio. She lives about 20 miles from here so it's big news in the Seattle area.)
Addited: If there ends up being a fund to help this woman fund her abortion (a practice I find repugnant), I would contribute to help her out. In fact...I think I'll see if there is one....
Additing again: Reportedly, she has had a healthy baby since this happened, so that made me happy for her in that respect. The baby that was aborted was very much wanted.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Quick lowdown on the story: An army wife's fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, which is 100% fatal. The diagnosis was confirmed by specialists with the recommendation for termination of the pregnancy. Abortion is only covered under federal insurance if the life of the woman is in danger. This is not the case with anencephaly, though it is certainly not *good* for the woman since the baby has no brain to trigger labor when the time comes. Such pregnancies last until the woman dies or a csection ends it. The treatment for anencephaly is always abortion.
I agree this is a sticky and painful situation, but I think some of this goes a bit beyond the facts when it comes to anencephaly. I just did a quick check on google and it was hard to find any information. The one site I did find with information had an obvious pro-life slant (it's totally devoted to the subject of anencephaly), but it suggests that these pregnancies aren't dangerous to the mother and that survival time varies. They also claim there's more of an issue with misdiagnosis than is generally believed, from what I gather.
None of this changes the very real and painful situation here - but we don't make it worse than it is.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: Never mind. I recognize your last sentence indicates that you want to make sure we don't make things worse than they are.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. Sounds like that's just a bad situation all around. I think I pretty much agree with your feelings on the situation. Perhaps the law can be amended by Congress to make room for this sort of problem. I admit that I have a very hard time thinking of a human with only a brain stem as a person. There is no seat of consciousness, and no potential for it, even if somehow the baby could survive.
Out of curiosity, are there people or groups who would argue that a body without a cerebrum is a person deserving of protection? If so, why? What about a brain-dead adult on life support? (This isn't sarcasm. I'm just interested to know.)
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shig, I would not abort a child just because of anencephaly (I was induced with my first, I'm not afraid to do it again; if they said I needed to for my health, I would consider it.) (That is just MY choice, though, and I would not force it on anyone.) However, I would most probably ask that no intervention be made to keep her alive unless it was determined that she had healthy organs that could save another child's life. I would insist that I get to hold my baby until she died, though. I would sing her songs. In my belief system, we come to this world to gain a physical body to be restored at the final day, to join a family here, and to perfect ourselves by going through trials and joys and learning and loving and struggling and becoming better people (hopefully.) Some children are born unable to live through those struggles and joys because their spirits don't need any perfecting. I believe they will have fully functional, perfect bodies on that last day, but for now, it is enough that they are born into a family and hopefully loved. I would love my son or daughter as much as I could in that short time, and allow his or her failing body to help others have another chance if possible, and I would cherish the time I had with that baby before it was born.
I'm not sure what I think about "brain-dead" people on life support. I think all cases must be judged individually and with discretion.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, kq. That makes sense. The idea of donating the baby's organs was an angle I hadn't thought of, either. That's a really good point.
I guess my belief that the soul/mind is more an emergent property of the brain than something given to the body from the outside probably means we aren't going to agree on this particular issue. But I respect your point of view, and I see how it follows from your beliefs.
Would an ancephalic baby (or a miscarried baby, or a baby that dies very young) be sealed to its parents?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anencephalic babies and babies that die shortly after birth, yes.
Babies that die before birth or are miscarried, there is no official doctrine about. There are a few things that have been taught that may have some implications to these teachings, and we can all form our own opinions. But when families are sealed, only babies that were born alive and have died after birth are sealed by proxy to families, and the rest is left to "it will be worked out in the Millenium".
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. Again, because of the way I think of things, I'd consider a miscarried near-term baby who had developed a cerebrum to be a person, more or less, but I have my doubts about a baby that never had one, even if it is born alive.
Is there official doctrine on why the spirits who don't need perfecting would choose to come to earth? (That's how it works, right? Some spirits choose to come to earth, and some stay in heaven?)
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't choose when or where (that we know of; most of us think it's planned by Heavenly Father), and all will eventually be born.
Personally-- this is just MY personal opinion-- I agree with you on babies that have progressed until near term before they died or who are stillborn at term. I think they have spirits with them and will recieve those bodies, and it may go back even farther than that (although I'm not sure how far, and at some points it may even be an in-and-out kind of thing.) There is no official doctrine on when a spirit joins a body, although most people, again, will probably tell you it's at some point before birth.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I didn't realize that doctrine states that all spirits are born. I thought some were, and some weren't. Thanks for explaining. Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Addited: If there ends up being a fund to help this woman fund her abortion (a practice I find repugnant), I would contribute to help her out. In fact...I think I'll see if there is one....
There should be one, or at least people might be 'passing the hat'. The military does tend to take care of its own with sudden financial needs or hardships
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've known of anencephalic babies that were carried to term and there was no risk to the mother. In fact, I think it goes too far to say the treatment for it is always abortion.
Sometimes, if it's discovered late in the pregnancy the treatment is induced labor. Sometimes it's not diagnosed until after the delivery, though with today's widespread use of ultrasound I would imagine that's rare.
I feel for her. The pain she must have felt and gone through, I'm very glad for her and her husband that they have a healthy baby now. I'm very sorry to hear that she went through it. But I don't think taxpayers dollars should ever pay for an abortion, so I have to say I agree with the ruling. The only exception is when the life of the mother is clearly in danger, and an anencephalic baby is not usually life threatening to the mother. I would be angry and outraged if the government refused to pay for the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, for example, which is extremely dangerous for the mother, but that's not the case here.
I also agree that private donations and funds set up to help her out are a wonderful idea. In other words, if people choose to help out, that's wonderful. But I don't think the government should pay for it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
