I'm actually afraid to tell you this, but when I had my two c-sections, first emergency, but both with epidurals, so I was awake. My arms were tied down. They were laid outstretched and strapped to something. I assume it was for the anesthesiologist to attach bp cuffs and manage the IVs, but you did not make that up. I honestly believe that I had/have PTSD. We talk a lot about post partum depression, but I also think there are elements of PTSD that could be exacerbated by any birth.
It's been OVER 40 years, and when I read your story, the fear from that emergency C-section, came roaring back over me.
Just wait until the anti-choice movement turns on some of their own: the evangelical or trad-cath, trad wife, quiver-filling, homesteading, free-birthing influencers due to the dangers posed to the fetus. If you don't get a choice whether or not to have a baby, you don't get a choice on how to birth it.
C-sections are expensive--just another "pink tax" (ie a disposable razor costs more if it's supposed to be for women than the identical razor that's supposed to be for men; charging more to launder a blouse than a shirt).
Jessica, I am so sorry you ever had to go through that nightmare. And I am so grateful that you have turned that trauma into action, on behalf of all who might ever be pregnant! ❤️🩹
Why has there yet to be any mention about the Dublin Declaration on this newsletter? I've been following for a year and still haven't seen it even mentioned. It's literally the origin of this extremist belief that abortions are never medically necessary. I attached an excellent article on its history from NCBI. I sent it to Jessica a few weeks ago but didn't hear back. I'm sure she's crazy busy but I'd think this would be important to know.
The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Care and Anti-Abortion Activism
“ In 2012, Ireland was in the midst of a debate over the relationship between abortion laws and maternal mortality rates. Abortion opponents cited low Irish maternal mortality rates as evidence that women are not harmed by the abortion ban, while critics charged that a combination of undercounting and travel to other countries for abortion could explain the “myth of low maternal mortality in Ireland”.12 A 2012 inter-agency governmental assessment recommended sweeping changes in maternal mortality reporting. Ireland was also under increasing pressure from the European Court of Human Rights to ease its almost-complete ban on abortion, especially for reasons of medical necessity. The central question was the following: is access to legal abortion necessary to save women’s lives?”
Well this explains why the zealous Catholic Supreme Court Justices were so willing to discuss whether women should be “allowed” life-saving care or how many organs they need to lose before receiving it. Further proof (if you really need it) that this Supreme Court won’t quit until they have forced their sick religion on the rest of us.
“ The Dublin Declaration provides an escape clause for pro-life clinicians and their political allies who can use it to justify terminating a pregnancy when faced with events—such as ectopic pregnancy—that threaten a pregnant woman’s life, by defining the treatment as something other than abortion. They reason that “the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
So why did a Catholic hospital deny me a life-saving abortion when they discovered my ectopic pregnancy? Why do Catholic hospitals continue to deny this care? Why do they not offer care for miscarriages?
Thanks for this link. It answered a few questions I had as well as confirming what a twisted, fucked-up religion Catholicism is.
*hugs* I am so sorry they were allowed to do that to you. That is awful that instead of saving lives, they want to legally change the standard of care.
Thanks, Natalie. Since Dobbs I’ve been haunted by the fact that Catholic hospitals’ lousy maternal non-care is now the universal standard for women. Since my experience, I suspected that it is the main reason for our horrid maternal mortality rates. And I was right. We have to change this.
That's horrifying about your treatment. Did you have to go to another hospital? I'm so sorry you had to go through that. They really should be denied Medicaid funding if they're going to treat women like that.
Thanks, Laura. My doctor said she could help but not there. It took some time, but she got privileges at another hospital where I finally had a laparoscopic surgery. Because of me, she moved her practice permanently. But it took a week and it was the scariest thing I’ve ever been through. Women need to stay the hell out of Catholic hospitals until we demand ALL hospitals give 21st century, life-saving care — with no exceptions.
There were two larger hospitals in a town close to mine where many in my region seek prenatal care; one was Catholic, the other was religiously unaffiliated. A large Catholic health system out of St. Louis, the Vatican of the Midwest, swooped down and gobbled it up. Now, there isn't even an option for sterilization during a c-section or less invasive treatment for tubal pregnancies.
It’s a real problem that Catholic hospitals are allowed a monopoly in whole swaths if this country. When we win back Congress and get Harris elected, this has to be addressed. We can’t keep putting women in jeopardy. It’s barbaric!
A week?! 😦 Wow... that is terrifying. Can't believe no one's died at one of these hospitals. They never have to charge their policies when they can just pawn their patients off on other hospitals. Glad your doctor chose to leave that hospital.
Yeah, it was scary even though I was in close communication. Protocol is that you’re taken immediately to surgery. It scared me enough that I didn’t risk another pregnancy. This was during Roe and EMTALA, too.
When I first heard about c-sections way back in the sixties, it was described to me as if it were not surgery. I recall asking if there were another opening that they could access. There wasn't, but they stuck to that narrative discussing it as if it were like zipping open a purse. c-sections are a very old institution in the medical profession. It was and is very strange the way the medical profession treats the very anatomy of a woman. We might hope that a scientific point of view might protect us, but anyone can practice science and discourse accordingly and to any purpose.
When they interrogated Galileo, they argued science, not religion. They save that for last for when their science failed.
I love the post-cesarean medical instruction of "don't lift anything heavier than the baby". This is advised whether or not the baby is 6 lbs or 12 lbs. If you have a 12 lb baby, you have far more options as to which household tasks you are capable of completing than if your baby had been merely 6 lbs.
They know women don't have a choice---we have to pick up the baby even if our guts spill out.
Me too. And I hope different outcome than the cases in which moms have sued for malpractice that harmed them during delivery but not the baby. Society expects women to be injured and suffer in childbirth so historically it’s been very hard for women to separate out the harm caused by their doctor and that from childbirth.
If they want to continue along this path without losing expensive lawsuits, they are going to have to start passing fetal personhood laws, which would result in the outlawing of IVF and arguably, some forms of contraception in multiple states, resulting in even more political opposition than they are experiencing today. SCOTUS would have a hard time allowing the definition of personhood to vary by state, since they are charged with interpreting the US constitution which would override state laws. While this might lead to a bad result in the short run, should SCOTUS decide that fetal personhood is the law of the land, I believe that in the long run the American people will not stand for the result, and SCOTUS would effectively have to reverse its decision to leave abortion “up to the states.” And make a zero-sum decision on when and whether “fetal rights” take precedence over the rights of living, breathing human beings (and there is a religious liberty angle to this). Framed in this way, Americans will only stand for one answer. Any political party aligned with the fetal rights movement will lose repeatedly, and in this way, reproductive rights will become the defining political issue of our time.
Fetal personhood has long been their goal, they have slipped a few cases in here and there Georgia has it I believe, and who could forget Alabama with it's "extra-uterine children" what we would call IVF cells in a petrie dish.
That’s my hope too. If these psychos pass these cruel and draconian laws, there will finally be huge and lasting blowback and maybe reproductive rights will actually become stronger.
I don't understand what the difference is in their minds. Like, why is a C-section OK if the end result is the pregnancy is terminated? How do they not see that as still an abortion? Am I being dense?
They have a fetish about delivering and I quote "An intact fetal body." They fool themselves and quibble about terminology, to supposedly "Prove" that abortion (Their definition, not the actual medical one) is not healthcare (20 years of working in a surgical suite, proves to me that it most certainly is necessary!) In short, they are medically ignorant fanatics, who don't want accurate information, so they can maintain their harmful ignorance.
THANK YOU JESSICA CRAVEN for your years of activism and your excellent CHOP WOOD, CARRY WATER newsletter that gives "easy, effective political actions to take to stave off despair..." As I recall, it was you who introduced me to Jessica Valenti's must read ABORTION, EVERY DAY.
I read the document from the pro-fetus OBGYN group and the goal seems to be to keep an intact fetus regardless of its status. So cut open the woman in major abdominal surgery with all its attendant problems so that the fetus is kept intact.
This is what is referred to as the Dublin Declaration that an abortion is never medically necessary. I don't know why I have yet to see it even mentioned here in the year that I've been following Jessica. I've been trying to contact her about it but she isn't responding. I'd imagine her email box is jam packed.
The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Care and Anti-Abortion Activism
It appears to me it is the issue of “completing” the pregnancy and birthing process with the child dead or alive. It may be seen as the complete cycle. 🔁 Medical cruelty is an excellent description. Sigh
I think that requiring a C-section allows thr forced birthers to pretend that an actual birth is taking place, when, in the case of a nonviable pregnancy, a woman is being forced to go through an invasive and potentially dangerous procedure to satisfy religious sadists.
This is such a strong (and so eloquently written) argument against forced c-sections. We need to have a major conversation around this unnecessarily perverse, dangerous and expensive(!) development in maternal “care”. Why do we never hear from the American Medical Association about these lousy medical mandates? I understand individual doctors being afraid, but the entire medical community is becoming complicit with their silence. I have to wonder as well: Are insurance companies going to pay for all these unnecessary surgeries? Why don’t we hear from them? We get more support from the band of aviators flying women to blue states to get their healthcare!
I’m so glad you shared your story and that you were able to have the child you so wanted.
I have thought the same. Why aren’t hospital systems and insurance companies talking about the increased costs of these unnecessary surgeries when healthcare is already so expensive? Unfortunately, money tends to talk more to politicians than actual human lives, so it seems like it would be an important argument in the cause.
I think part of the problem is that obstetrics has one of the highest malpractice lawsuit rates and juries often award huge sums for plaintiffs (bc babies make for very empathetic plaintiffs) and this informs how doctors think about the risks during delivery. It’s not just the risk to the pregnant patient but the risk the doctor will be sued that they evaluate. Same mechanism as what’s happening with abortion bans imposing massive fines and jail time.
As to cost, I don’t think the answer is to have insurance companies refuse to pay. I’d argue it’s egregious and immoral for an insurance company to refuse to cover a woman’s c section bc it concludes it’s unnecessary. First, doctors not insurance companies (or politicians) know best. Second, many women do want c sections for non health reasons. I personally prefer the certainty of a surgical cut to the uncertainty of vaginal delivery. I think of an OBGYN I follow on Instagram who said her main goal in her own birth plan for natural delivery was (besides healthy baby) preserving her butthole. Or one woman I know who had such tearing she lost the ability to control when she passes gas. Or my other friend who had a level 4 tear…only two ways the baby is coming out and pros and cons to both. The KEY issue is women should have the CHOICE. They should be informed of the risks and benefits of both options and be allowed to make the choice that is right for them. But in our country, even pre Roe, being pregnant means you lose the right to make your own choices bc you are just treated like an incubator.
Yes agree re choice! And def not implying you personally think insurance companies know better. But there’s a huge tug of war between doctor and insurance companies already where insurance companies deny coverage for treatments doctors prescribe bc the insurance companies think the treatments aren’t medically necessary. So that’s just what I read you as referring to.
I don’t think insurance companies know better than doctors. Not at all. I’m thinking insurance companies may weary of paying for unnecessary surgeries. And there’s a difference between choosing a c-section to deliver a healthy baby, and having a c-section forced on you in place of a much less invasive procedure. That’s not “choice”.
I suspect that like many industries, doctors prefer and are used to being able to support both parties. The situation we have now is that one party has come out unequivocally against health care, and that may still be jarring for many doctors who don't think of themselves or their work as particularly political. But this is the kind of thing that happens when an authoritarian, fascist movement is on the rise: everybody gets sucked in one way or another; you lose the ability to opt out.
Does anyone else remember that anti-abortion Senator Rick Santorum’s wife was induced because she was septic while pregnant with a non viable child? He wrote that if the induction was unsuccessful, they would have done a partial birth abortion. She was lucky to to survive the ordeal but many women don’t. Truly, women’s lives don’t matter to these Christo-Fascists
Partial birth abortion is an anti-abortion term meant to evoke gore. The uterus is injected with a chemical that stops the fetus' heart. Only four doctors in the US do it. Then they return and have the contents removed. They used to crush the head but that's no longer legal.
I'm actually afraid to tell you this, but when I had my two c-sections, first emergency, but both with epidurals, so I was awake. My arms were tied down. They were laid outstretched and strapped to something. I assume it was for the anesthesiologist to attach bp cuffs and manage the IVs, but you did not make that up. I honestly believe that I had/have PTSD. We talk a lot about post partum depression, but I also think there are elements of PTSD that could be exacerbated by any birth.
It's been OVER 40 years, and when I read your story, the fear from that emergency C-section, came roaring back over me.
Just wait until the anti-choice movement turns on some of their own: the evangelical or trad-cath, trad wife, quiver-filling, homesteading, free-birthing influencers due to the dangers posed to the fetus. If you don't get a choice whether or not to have a baby, you don't get a choice on how to birth it.
The fact that they are more concerned about preserving an "intact" fetus more than they are about preserving an intact WOMAN is horrifying.
Here’s a feel good song from Ken’ Mo
https://youtu.be/FciQeRGYFlw?si=qj54jR4GwFPC_DWu
C-sections are expensive--just another "pink tax" (ie a disposable razor costs more if it's supposed to be for women than the identical razor that's supposed to be for men; charging more to launder a blouse than a shirt).
Jessica, I am so sorry you ever had to go through that nightmare. And I am so grateful that you have turned that trauma into action, on behalf of all who might ever be pregnant! ❤️🩹
Why has there yet to be any mention about the Dublin Declaration on this newsletter? I've been following for a year and still haven't seen it even mentioned. It's literally the origin of this extremist belief that abortions are never medically necessary. I attached an excellent article on its history from NCBI. I sent it to Jessica a few weeks ago but didn't hear back. I'm sure she's crazy busy but I'd think this would be important to know.
The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Care and Anti-Abortion Activism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473037/
Also from the Declaration:
“ In 2012, Ireland was in the midst of a debate over the relationship between abortion laws and maternal mortality rates. Abortion opponents cited low Irish maternal mortality rates as evidence that women are not harmed by the abortion ban, while critics charged that a combination of undercounting and travel to other countries for abortion could explain the “myth of low maternal mortality in Ireland”.12 A 2012 inter-agency governmental assessment recommended sweeping changes in maternal mortality reporting. Ireland was also under increasing pressure from the European Court of Human Rights to ease its almost-complete ban on abortion, especially for reasons of medical necessity. The central question was the following: is access to legal abortion necessary to save women’s lives?”
Well this explains why the zealous Catholic Supreme Court Justices were so willing to discuss whether women should be “allowed” life-saving care or how many organs they need to lose before receiving it. Further proof (if you really need it) that this Supreme Court won’t quit until they have forced their sick religion on the rest of us.
From the Declaration:
“ The Dublin Declaration provides an escape clause for pro-life clinicians and their political allies who can use it to justify terminating a pregnancy when faced with events—such as ectopic pregnancy—that threaten a pregnant woman’s life, by defining the treatment as something other than abortion. They reason that “the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
So why did a Catholic hospital deny me a life-saving abortion when they discovered my ectopic pregnancy? Why do Catholic hospitals continue to deny this care? Why do they not offer care for miscarriages?
Thanks for this link. It answered a few questions I had as well as confirming what a twisted, fucked-up religion Catholicism is.
*hugs* I am so sorry they were allowed to do that to you. That is awful that instead of saving lives, they want to legally change the standard of care.
Thanks, Natalie. Since Dobbs I’ve been haunted by the fact that Catholic hospitals’ lousy maternal non-care is now the universal standard for women. Since my experience, I suspected that it is the main reason for our horrid maternal mortality rates. And I was right. We have to change this.
That's horrifying about your treatment. Did you have to go to another hospital? I'm so sorry you had to go through that. They really should be denied Medicaid funding if they're going to treat women like that.
Thanks, Laura. My doctor said she could help but not there. It took some time, but she got privileges at another hospital where I finally had a laparoscopic surgery. Because of me, she moved her practice permanently. But it took a week and it was the scariest thing I’ve ever been through. Women need to stay the hell out of Catholic hospitals until we demand ALL hospitals give 21st century, life-saving care — with no exceptions.
There were two larger hospitals in a town close to mine where many in my region seek prenatal care; one was Catholic, the other was religiously unaffiliated. A large Catholic health system out of St. Louis, the Vatican of the Midwest, swooped down and gobbled it up. Now, there isn't even an option for sterilization during a c-section or less invasive treatment for tubal pregnancies.
It’s a real problem that Catholic hospitals are allowed a monopoly in whole swaths if this country. When we win back Congress and get Harris elected, this has to be addressed. We can’t keep putting women in jeopardy. It’s barbaric!
A week?! 😦 Wow... that is terrifying. Can't believe no one's died at one of these hospitals. They never have to charge their policies when they can just pawn their patients off on other hospitals. Glad your doctor chose to leave that hospital.
Yeah, it was scary even though I was in close communication. Protocol is that you’re taken immediately to surgery. It scared me enough that I didn’t risk another pregnancy. This was during Roe and EMTALA, too.
Thanks again.
What’s the word for fascinating but in a terrible, horrible way?
When I first heard about c-sections way back in the sixties, it was described to me as if it were not surgery. I recall asking if there were another opening that they could access. There wasn't, but they stuck to that narrative discussing it as if it were like zipping open a purse. c-sections are a very old institution in the medical profession. It was and is very strange the way the medical profession treats the very anatomy of a woman. We might hope that a scientific point of view might protect us, but anyone can practice science and discourse accordingly and to any purpose.
When they interrogated Galileo, they argued science, not religion. They save that for last for when their science failed.
I love the post-cesarean medical instruction of "don't lift anything heavier than the baby". This is advised whether or not the baby is 6 lbs or 12 lbs. If you have a 12 lb baby, you have far more options as to which household tasks you are capable of completing than if your baby had been merely 6 lbs.
They know women don't have a choice---we have to pick up the baby even if our guts spill out.
I sincerely hope that women will consider suing states and hospitals for medical malpractice and negligence.
Forcing womtn to undergo invasive surgery to satisfy religious zealots and cowardly legislators is appalling.
🎯And fucking barbaric! I was a Surgical Assistant and we made sure to give proper standard of care. This is outrageous.
Me too. And I hope different outcome than the cases in which moms have sued for malpractice that harmed them during delivery but not the baby. Society expects women to be injured and suffer in childbirth so historically it’s been very hard for women to separate out the harm caused by their doctor and that from childbirth.
Vote KAMALA to end this effing nightmare.
Ever so much this^^^
If they want to continue along this path without losing expensive lawsuits, they are going to have to start passing fetal personhood laws, which would result in the outlawing of IVF and arguably, some forms of contraception in multiple states, resulting in even more political opposition than they are experiencing today. SCOTUS would have a hard time allowing the definition of personhood to vary by state, since they are charged with interpreting the US constitution which would override state laws. While this might lead to a bad result in the short run, should SCOTUS decide that fetal personhood is the law of the land, I believe that in the long run the American people will not stand for the result, and SCOTUS would effectively have to reverse its decision to leave abortion “up to the states.” And make a zero-sum decision on when and whether “fetal rights” take precedence over the rights of living, breathing human beings (and there is a religious liberty angle to this). Framed in this way, Americans will only stand for one answer. Any political party aligned with the fetal rights movement will lose repeatedly, and in this way, reproductive rights will become the defining political issue of our time.
Fetal personhood has long been their goal, they have slipped a few cases in here and there Georgia has it I believe, and who could forget Alabama with it's "extra-uterine children" what we would call IVF cells in a petrie dish.
That’s my hope too. If these psychos pass these cruel and draconian laws, there will finally be huge and lasting blowback and maybe reproductive rights will actually become stronger.
I don't understand what the difference is in their minds. Like, why is a C-section OK if the end result is the pregnancy is terminated? How do they not see that as still an abortion? Am I being dense?
They have a fetish about delivering and I quote "An intact fetal body." They fool themselves and quibble about terminology, to supposedly "Prove" that abortion (Their definition, not the actual medical one) is not healthcare (20 years of working in a surgical suite, proves to me that it most certainly is necessary!) In short, they are medically ignorant fanatics, who don't want accurate information, so they can maintain their harmful ignorance.
THANK YOU JESSICA CRAVEN for your years of activism and your excellent CHOP WOOD, CARRY WATER newsletter that gives "easy, effective political actions to take to stave off despair..." As I recall, it was you who introduced me to Jessica Valenti's must read ABORTION, EVERY DAY.
Awww thank you!
I read the document from the pro-fetus OBGYN group and the goal seems to be to keep an intact fetus regardless of its status. So cut open the woman in major abdominal surgery with all its attendant problems so that the fetus is kept intact.
Zero men would be expected to physically harm themselves to preserve the corpse of their dead child.
This is what is referred to as the Dublin Declaration that an abortion is never medically necessary. I don't know why I have yet to see it even mentioned here in the year that I've been following Jessica. I've been trying to contact her about it but she isn't responding. I'd imagine her email box is jam packed.
The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Care and Anti-Abortion Activism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473037/
So, they want women to undergo major surgery that will produce a intact, but DEAD fetus...
🎯
It appears to me it is the issue of “completing” the pregnancy and birthing process with the child dead or alive. It may be seen as the complete cycle. 🔁 Medical cruelty is an excellent description. Sigh
Absolute malpractice works, too.
Yes
I think that requiring a C-section allows thr forced birthers to pretend that an actual birth is taking place, when, in the case of a nonviable pregnancy, a woman is being forced to go through an invasive and potentially dangerous procedure to satisfy religious sadists.
🎯Concise and accurate, well said.
It's an abortion with a little cruelty thrown in. Or perhaps I have that backwards?
This is such a strong (and so eloquently written) argument against forced c-sections. We need to have a major conversation around this unnecessarily perverse, dangerous and expensive(!) development in maternal “care”. Why do we never hear from the American Medical Association about these lousy medical mandates? I understand individual doctors being afraid, but the entire medical community is becoming complicit with their silence. I have to wonder as well: Are insurance companies going to pay for all these unnecessary surgeries? Why don’t we hear from them? We get more support from the band of aviators flying women to blue states to get their healthcare!
I’m so glad you shared your story and that you were able to have the child you so wanted.
The insurance companies will not, and that leves the victim (patient) left to pay and be in debt probably for life.
I have thought the same. Why aren’t hospital systems and insurance companies talking about the increased costs of these unnecessary surgeries when healthcare is already so expensive? Unfortunately, money tends to talk more to politicians than actual human lives, so it seems like it would be an important argument in the cause.
I agree and that is the question for the insurance companies 🤷♀️
I think part of the problem is that obstetrics has one of the highest malpractice lawsuit rates and juries often award huge sums for plaintiffs (bc babies make for very empathetic plaintiffs) and this informs how doctors think about the risks during delivery. It’s not just the risk to the pregnant patient but the risk the doctor will be sued that they evaluate. Same mechanism as what’s happening with abortion bans imposing massive fines and jail time.
As to cost, I don’t think the answer is to have insurance companies refuse to pay. I’d argue it’s egregious and immoral for an insurance company to refuse to cover a woman’s c section bc it concludes it’s unnecessary. First, doctors not insurance companies (or politicians) know best. Second, many women do want c sections for non health reasons. I personally prefer the certainty of a surgical cut to the uncertainty of vaginal delivery. I think of an OBGYN I follow on Instagram who said her main goal in her own birth plan for natural delivery was (besides healthy baby) preserving her butthole. Or one woman I know who had such tearing she lost the ability to control when she passes gas. Or my other friend who had a level 4 tear…only two ways the baby is coming out and pros and cons to both. The KEY issue is women should have the CHOICE. They should be informed of the risks and benefits of both options and be allowed to make the choice that is right for them. But in our country, even pre Roe, being pregnant means you lose the right to make your own choices bc you are just treated like an incubator.
Yes agree re choice! And def not implying you personally think insurance companies know better. But there’s a huge tug of war between doctor and insurance companies already where insurance companies deny coverage for treatments doctors prescribe bc the insurance companies think the treatments aren’t medically necessary. So that’s just what I read you as referring to.
I don’t think insurance companies know better than doctors. Not at all. I’m thinking insurance companies may weary of paying for unnecessary surgeries. And there’s a difference between choosing a c-section to deliver a healthy baby, and having a c-section forced on you in place of a much less invasive procedure. That’s not “choice”.
I suspect that like many industries, doctors prefer and are used to being able to support both parties. The situation we have now is that one party has come out unequivocally against health care, and that may still be jarring for many doctors who don't think of themselves or their work as particularly political. But this is the kind of thing that happens when an authoritarian, fascist movement is on the rise: everybody gets sucked in one way or another; you lose the ability to opt out.
Sadly, many doctors are both religious and republican, at least here in the south.
grotesque.
Whole R party is pretty grotesque
Does anyone else remember that anti-abortion Senator Rick Santorum’s wife was induced because she was septic while pregnant with a non viable child? He wrote that if the induction was unsuccessful, they would have done a partial birth abortion. She was lucky to to survive the ordeal but many women don’t. Truly, women’s lives don’t matter to these Christo-Fascists
Partial birth abortion is an anti-abortion term meant to evoke gore. The uterus is injected with a chemical that stops the fetus' heart. Only four doctors in the US do it. Then they return and have the contents removed. They used to crush the head but that's no longer legal.
Choice is our armor in the most painful and brutal of times.