The Non-Problem of False Rape Claims for Medicaid Abortions

By now you’ve no doubt heard that one of the signature bills of the new Republican majority, H.R. 3 or “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act,” seeks to make permanent bans on federal funding for almost all abortions by–among other things–limiting abortions for pregnancies caused by rape to those caused by “forcible rape.” No one actually knows what “forcible rape” is, as the bill’s authors don’t define it and the term isn’t found in the federal criminal code. But presumably it was considered a better phrase than the Whoopi Goldberg “rape-rape” standard.

I’d love to know how this issue came up during drafting of the legislation. One congressman pipes up: “And while we’re at it, you know what really burns me up? All of those women getting abortions paid for by Medicaid and saying they were raped. I bet they weren’t even really raped.”

Regardless, the bill got me wondering: How does a woman go about getting Medicaid funding for an abortion if she’s been raped (one of the three situations–along with a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother or one caused by incest–for which the Hyde Amendment allows federal money to cover abortion services)? Is it just a matter of walking into an abortion clinic, declaring you’ve been raped, and getting a check from Medicaid four weeks later to cover the cost of the abortion?

Not exactly. Eligibility rules under the Hyde exceptions differ by state, but many states are like Tennessee, which requires a doctor to certify that “there is credible evidence to believe that the pregnancy is the result of rape” and to attach “documentation from a law enforcement agency indicating the patient has made a credible report as the victim of incest or rape” before Medicaid will consider issuing payment for an abortion procedure. As for the idea that there are all sorts of women filing false reports of rape, rape is consistently the most under-reported of all violent crimes. People aren’t lining up to claim sexual assaults that did happen, much less those that didn’t.

So that scourge of false rape reports–or even, let’s say, “non-forcible” rapes? It doesn’t exist. I couldn’t find numbers more recent than 2001, but these shocked me. In that year, the total number of abortions covered by Medicaid was 56. That’s all abortions for cases in which the mother’s life was in danger, the pregnancy was a result of incest, or in the case of rape. Another 25 were covered by state Medicaid programs. Even assuming that every single one of those abortions was to end a pregnancy caused by rape, that’s 81 abortions paid for in part with taxpayer dollars. Nationwide. That’s roughly $32,000 total for first trimester procedures.

You can see why that number must be brought down by allowing only pregnancies caused by “forcible” rapes to be covered.

In case the “forcible” rape exception is still too broad, the authors of H.R. 3 also included a provision that essentially provides a loophole for any state that simply doesn’t want its funds governed by the Hyde Amendment exceptions. Section 308 of the bill reads:

Nothing in this chapter or any other Federal law shall be construed to require any State or local government to provide or pay for any abortion or any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of any abortion.

“Any abortion.” That means you, you wily rape victims and would-be mothers whose lives are threatened by your pregnancy. Let this serve as notice that the GOP majority doesn’t intend to let you get away with your little Medicaid scams anymore.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • gysgt213

    “I’d love to know how this issue came up during drafting of the legislation. One congressman pipes up:”
    .
    The republicans.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Thanks for this post, Amy. Great work chasing down the strands here.
    -
    This language is in the bill because there is no pro-life movement in the US concerned with reducing and ending abortion. If there were, there would be a movement pushing for access to contraception and accurate information about it, and for an increased social safety net that would reduce our abortion rate, as has happened in Massachusetts & all rich countries with universal health insurance. (And it would be working to ban in vitro fertilization, which leads to thousands of fertilized embryos being discarded).
    -
    There is no such movement. The reason is obvious, as this post makes clear. The “pro-life” movement isn’t concerned with fetal life. It’s concerned with government power over and shaming of women. Full stop, the end, nothing else.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks, Amy. Which congressvampire said the quote in your second paragraph? Do victims have to pay for their own rape testing kits, too (remember Sarah Palin’s past dustups on that issue)? Actually, did YOU try to interview Rep. Chris Smith about the bill and its vague definitions as pointed out? WaPo’s Jon Capehart has tried but failed.
    .
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/what_is_forcible_rape_exactly.html
    .
    Hope you have better luck getting the R’s to talk. I wonder why Dan Lipinski (D-IL) is really behind this bill. Maybe you can make him talk too, Amy. Here’s his only statement…
    .
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/dem-rep-opens-up-on-rape-redefining-bill.php

  • ritajoseph

    The death penalty is not applied to the rapist, so why should it be applied to an innocent unborn child?

    Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 6(5) and the American Convention Article 4(5) made explicit the very important connection between protecting unborn children and capital punishment. “Sentence of death shall not be carried out on pregnant women.”

    There is a long history of association between the death penalty and protection for the unborn child. The maternal reprieve was an ancient rule of common law and recognized that the child in the womb had a right to life even when the child’s mother had forfeited through a capital offence her own right to life.

    If the unborn child is not to be executed for the crimes of his/her mother than neither should he or she be executed for the crimes of his/her father.

    Since abortion is an act of violence against the child, it is a totally inappropriate response to offer victims/survivors of violence a service that comprises per se another act of violence, this time an act of violence in which there are two victims, the hurting mother and her own aborted child.

    When an abused mother tells the news that she is going to have a baby, what she really wants and needs (and is entitled to receive) is an immediate and whole-hearted welcome for her baby. She needs a firm promise that help will be there for her and her child for as long as is needed.

    As the most vulnerable of all pregnant women, the victims of rape need non-ambivalent reassurance, more so than other women.

    The very offer of an abortion carries with it a subliminal message that the baby is not positively wanted, is not going to be compassionately welcomed by family, friends and the wider community.

    It is indefensible to respond with a lethal act of violence against her child whose social origin lies in the paternal crime of rape or incest. The selective abortion of such a child is based on prejudice not justice.

    We need to deal with this appalling social climate in which vestiges of public censure of acts of rape spill over quite irrationally to the pregnancies that result from these acts. It is a cruel folly that the injustice and evil of acts of rape are so often transferred to the pregnancies so that the unborn babies themselves are treated routinely as unjust and evil.

  • shepherdwong

    Again, thanks for covering this. Every woman in America should tell the Republican Party to go rape themselves.

  • Matt

    This is the kind of development that lets us really see where the tea party/GOP wants to take America. They are prepared to devolve women’s rights in this country to a level moire akin to Iran or Saudi Arabia , and to force their toxic agenda on a clueless public. And how many jobs will this bill create?
    http://www.sunstateactivist.org

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    How is there a difference between “rape” and “forcible rape”?? And here I thought that every woman who had ever been raped had been forced to have sex…

  • pneogy

    Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? What’s happening to my country?!

  • newfreedomblog

    Gee, another vilification post of Republicans by our favorite far left liberal extremist, Amy “I hate all conservatives” Sullivan. SURPRISE…. SURPRISE… SURPRISE.

  • formerlyjames

    I attribute the language to right wing speak. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not, but always a simple provocative propaganda tool. Take a gander at # 4 above for an even more bizarre view entailing consideration of state sanctioned execution of pregnant women (such a thing has occurred?) and the rights of the conceived fetus of rapists and their victims. I am pro-choice, but have no especially strong opinion about abortion, and it’s just as well, as some of the discussion is far beyond my attention span in that regard.

  • deconstructiva

    …a new Salon article annihilates that definition-parsing…
    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/01/hr3_abortion_rape/

  • dollared

    Rita, what are the rights of the woman who is the victim of the crimes of rape or incest? Should she not have the right to determine whether or not to have to spend the next 8 months carrying the child of a rapist until its birth?

  • apr2563

    Amen Elvis.

  • nflfoghorn

    Call me when you actually want to prosecute people for having sex….

  • apr2563

    I worked in a tavern years ago. The television in the bar was playing Jody Foster’s movie about a woman who was held down and raped in a bar.
    There ensued a conversation in the tavern about some of the men’s perception that the victim was dressed provoctively and deserved the attack.
    Since I found some of them provocative, I asked some of the men to lean over the pool table while I inserted the cue in a loving way.
    .
    Now I know those congress people have nothing but loving concern for women, I would just like to ask them to bend over the pool table.

  • apr2563

    Moran: If you bothered to read before spouting your paranoia, you will note that it has been discussed on this thread that the sponsors also include Democrats.

  • shepherdwong

    Can you believe that Markos Moulitsas was criticized for titling his book about the American right, “American Taliban”?

  • deconstructiva

    Yep, now it’s official: our beloved rusty hates all the women journalists at the swamp. Like that was hard to guess.

  • earljr1

    A very thoughtful and appropriate response, Rita, but sure to be vilified by liberal posters who regard fetal life to be superfluous and disposable.
    These would be champions of human rights are “blind” to the same rights of that unborn child and denounce proponents as being “anti women” and chauvinistic. (see message two)
    Keep delivering your message, Rita, it needs to be heard and who knows, perhaps some of these rabid “pro choice” people could actually have a moral conscience. Especially when they hear sound reasoning presented in such an intelligent and compassionate manner.
    Thank you.

  • formerlyjames

    This thread is about to fade away, yet it sticks in my mind. What religious insanity, what stupidity.

  • earljr1

    Are you describing your own confused mental state formerlyjames, or simply admitting you lack the intelligence to understand the sanctity of life.

  • chupkar

    What many people are missing here is that should this language stand it could set a precedent that sets women’s legal protections back decades. Not everyone misses this, but *anyone* defending this bill does, or agrees women are second class citizens. It does not matter where you stand on abortion. This is *dangerous* language.

  • formerlyjames

    earljr1, yes. And you?

  • earljr1

    Oh, I understand the sanctity of life, formerlyjames, I have spent my entire professional career trying to preserve it.

  • http://mowaterhouse.wordpress.com mowaterhouse

    All rape is real rape. All rape victims deserve real medical care. HR3 lies when it denies either fact.

  • xxeternalautumnxx

    A fetus has no rights, it is a cluster of cells in the process of growth. Nothing more.

    Saying a woman who is a victim of rape should keep her baby is appalling!. You must think that amnesia accompanies pregnancy, and that the long painful labor will somehow remove all memory of the assult and cause her to what?. All the sudden have some warm fuzzy slipper feelings towards the offspring of her attacker?.

    How many pregnant women are actually on death row.? And if I’m not mistaken most death row inmates serve time prior to being to executed. Certainly if a fetus is past the viability spectrum of survival, then she would surely give birth before being put to death.

    For all the abortions happening in this world, it doesn’t compare to the suffering of the children that have been brought into this world already.

    A fetus isn’t a child. You aren’t pregnant with a child for 9 months. Its cellular growth and development. How is it prejudice??. Why should a rapists genetics be allowed to survive and be carried on?

    In the end it’s a choice. And not everyone wants to carry, give birth and be reminded of a traumatic events that could shape the very life that child could or could not have.

    Abortion is never taken lightly or decided on a whim..

    Womans rights aren’t to be toyed with. And that’s the point

  • nilky666

    Very good!

  • ohiolibb

    to the same rights of that unborn child
    -
    Tell you what, earl. Give me some evidence that a fetus is legally and ethically the same as a child, and then we’ll talk. However, since no conservative here has managed to do that for years yet, I hope you’ll understand if I don’t hold my breath,

  • ritajoseph

    1. Right from the first drafting of the international human rights instruments, the legal language of human rights included repeatedly and consistently the terms ‘unborn children’ and ‘the child before as well as after birth’.

    It is not valid to replace these international human rights legal terms with ‘the fetus’ and then claim that the child has no right to legal protection.

    Dehumanizing language cannot legitimize human rights violations. Giving the human child at the early stages of development medical nomenclature does not alter the child’s human nature or the child’s entitlement ‘by nature’ to the ‘inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all members of the human family’.

    2. It is absolutely critical that these victim mothers be protected from further abuse. This has long been one of the hidden tragedies behind the facile practice of quietly aborting the children of rape and incest: women and girls are sent back into the same situation where further abuse leads to further abortions.

    3. In regard to eliminating “the rapist’s genetics” as an argument for aborting an innocent child: clearly we have no scientific evidence that there is a gene for rape or that rape is an inheritable genetic disorder. If indeed there was such evidence, then the rapist could not be held criminally responsible. Besides, we having living evidence of children conceived in rape who have grown into very loving responsible men and women.

    4.In no way should we ever seek to underestimate or trivialize the excruciating pain, both psychological and physical, that is endured by the victims of rape and incest. But neither should we ever consent to compound that pain by encouraging these victims to abort their innocent children who have an inimitable potential to bring true love and healing back into their mothers’ lives. These children are the priceless gifts of providence, not retribution. They are sent to show their mothers a way forward out of the valley of darkness, away from despair and hate. Led by a little child, each of these ineffably sad mothers may be drawn on to love and to be loved, to reclaim the heart of life. For here, providentially, is someone to love her, to bring to her life new and deep ties of kinship and meaning, a new someone who will come to know this mother and come to love her forever.

  • http://adio0361.wordpress.com adio0361

    xxeternalautum,

    Nothing more than a cluster of cells??

    Might be a good idea to brush up on your embryology…

    Their heart starts beating at 22 days which is about the same time frame the nervous system is developing.

    If a hear beat doesn’t constitute a human life then I don’t know what does.

  • earljr1

    Ohiolib, as a physician, I can tell you the fetus has a developing nervous system and a beating heart early in the first trimester. If you look at ultrasonic imaging from eight to ten weeks, you will see a well formed fetus that reacts to stimulus or pain.
    This IS human life at its early stage and I defy you, or anyone else, to dismiss this miraculous development to only being a cluster of embryonic cells. To do so, would be astonishingly naive.

  • rhea3

    A heartbeat without a functioning brain does not constitute a human life. An embryo at 22 days certainly does not have a functioning brain.

  • lou58lou

    I think if a woman wants to have sex, and does not want the child as a result. Maybe instead of abortions, we should pay for sterilizations, male and female. That way no babies are being killed, and abortions are a non issue.

  • rhea3

    And you can decide, for every woman pregnant as the result of rape or incest, that it would be less traumatic for her to continue the pregnancy for nine months and give birth than it would be to abort? YOU can decide? For EVERY woman? No. You cannot decide, I cannot decide, a priest cannot decide, the Republican party cannot decide, the government cannot decide. That decision is up to each woman or girl.

    I agree the victims must be protected from further abuse, and that includes being forced to continue a pregnancy that some have described as constantly feeling raped all over again. If they are willing to have the baby, that is their choice, but it must be a choice, and not all will choose it.

    A recent study showed that abortion causes fewer emotional problems and less stress than having a baby, even without considering rape victims:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41280864/ns/health-mental_health/

  • ohiolibb

    Thanks for a coherent response earl. However, the biological argument is only valid after the first 10 weeks or so. What about the first 10 weeks? Moreover, having a nervous system and heartbeat doesn’t inherently, make you human. The squirrels in my yard have both, yet I doubt anyone would call them human. Obviously, there is more to being a human being than merely having some physical development,

  • earljr1

    Again, Rita, well put and completely accurate.
    People who choose to dismiss fetal life are closing their minds (see 4.4) to simple and well documented facts.This baby cannot speak for itself and depends on us to protect and preserve a very fragile existence. Keep advancing your message, it WILL resonate with those who possess a moral compass.

  • http://adio0361.wordpress.com adio0361

    Brain waves are detectable at 6 weeks!! At 12 weeks the baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are also complete. How dare anyone in their selfish and uneducated mind deem it anything but appalling to inflict unimaginable pain on such a pure and innocent form of life.

    If you are for murdering innocent babies..so be it, but don’t try and justify it by sickly convincing yourself the living, breathing, hearing, moving, fully functioning baby that has finger prints, taste buds and a skeletal system is merely a cluster of cells. By 20 weeks, the earliest stage which partial birth abortions are performed, the baby is able to recognize its mothers voice, suck its thumb, kick, swim & hiccup.

    It is such a reversed society we live in.. save the trees and kill innocent babies.

    “The Lord detests hands that shed innocent blood”

  • earljr1

    Ohiolibb, we are of course, talking about human life here. There are many, myself included, who think life begins at the moment of conception. No, it is not viable until the second trimester, but it IS life.
    Your moral conscience must engage here and in the end, it will guide you if decisions are to be made on maintaining or terminating that life.
    Science can provide you with all of the evidence you want, but ultimately, the decision will be left to the individual. (and his, or her conscience)

  • ohiolibb

    Well, Earl, thank you. However, based on the evidence provided here, you’ve provided a very weak defense for the pro-life camp. You let it boil to individual conscience and morals. And that’s fine for making a personal decision. Unfortunately, it’s useless for making policy, especially at the national level. If a majority, of any size, decides that it’s immoral to, say, walk backwards on a Sunday while chewing gum, does that mean there should be a law against said activity? Likewise, unless there are stronger arguments that you haven’t made, you’ve provided no real evidence for policy and failed to provide even a framework for making morals decisions.

  • earljr1

    First and foremost, I am a physician, not a lawyer. During the first trimester, ohiolibb, it will ALWAYS boil down to conscience. There is no disputing life exisists, but we know how fragile that life is during early development.
    I can provide you with ample evidence that viability of that fetus begins in the second trimester and life is sustainable. For this reason we have laws prohibiting abortion after reaching this period of gestation. This does NOT alter the fact first trimester babies have life, because they do.
    A decision to kill that baby must lie on the individual conscience of the person making this choice.

  • http://tobeanelectrictelegraph.wordpress.com tobeanelectrictelegraph

    As Amy has proven, the government isn’t paying for abortions for victims of rape. The issue here is that the language of the bill puts women who do report their rapes in danger of not being able to pay for the resulting health services they need unless they can prove their rape was forcible. After a rape, a victim needs at the bare minimum a rape kit, a health exam, and STD testing. Not to mention counseling. This bill puts any of this being covered in danger. Essentially this bill tells victims of rape to not even bother reporting it because the government isn’t going to help you. It tells rapists that they can rape without consequences. It may say it’s about abortion, but it’s about silencing victims of rape.

  • http://voicefromthetrenches.wordpress.com voicefromthetrenches

    This is a very interesting argument: Because the government has determined that rape does not warrant the death penalty as punishment, therefore the rape victim must carry to term the pregnancy that results from this rape, because the rape itself was violent and abortion is violent so two violent acts are wrong.

    I am sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you. First of all, have you ever been raped? Do you even have the slightest inkling what rape means in the truest sense of the word? In all cases of rape, the mental trauma that a survivor must endure is awesome. To have been violated in such a way and not want to run and get help–as rape is the most under-reported crime globally (yes, that was GLOBALLY)–speaks volumes about the level of mental anguish these women are experiencing. Many victims of such crimes end up committing suicide, because they cannot face what has happened to them. Yes, it really is that bad–actually worse.

    Now, with the fundamental understanding that there is severe mental trauma as a result of experiencing a rape, add to that the discovery that this traumatic event has resulted in a pregnancy. What does that really mean for this rape victim? For 9 months, her body will change and everything that she does will revolve around the baby growing inside of her. For 9 months, she will constantly be reminded of the violent act forced upon her, because rape is violent from date rape to a rape involving a beating. It is violation of a woman’s body. That is a violent act. So, for 9 months, this rape victim will have to relive her rape every time she looks in a mirror, eats food, has a food craving, feels sick to her stomach, has heartburn, gets dressed, navigates a doorway, trips, etc. Then to top it off, this baby will either be cut out of her (C-section) or rip her apart during a vaginal birth. Both of which involves weeks of painful recovery.

    I am sorry, but I can think of no torture worse than that. I think if placed in that position and being forced by people of “moral standing” to have my rapist’s baby, I would rather die. I have no problem with paying my tax dollars so that no woman will ever have to experience such torment. I consider it charity.

    The abortion debate comes down to two points of view: those that see that abortion is a tool that can be used to deal with unwanted pregnancies, especially in extreme cases, and those that value the potential for life over life that already exists. Because just because a woman is pregnant that is no guaranty that her baby will be born a live and healthy. And just because it is legal doesn’t mean it’s usage shouldn’t have restriction (i.e. third trimester abortions are an abomination in my opinion).

    So, really, Rita, your argument is not only baseless, but in my mind the apex of cruelty. I am sure that you will disagree with me, find some flaw in what I have said, and that there is no way to get you to change your mind. I at least wanted you to take a moment and try to understand the reality of the already born person.

  • http://voicefromthetrenches.wordpress.com voicefromthetrenches

    1. So long as the women’s health is not adversely affected by the pregnancy, I totally agree with this. Once it adversely affects the mother, then the mother’s well-being should be protected over that of her unborn child, for the simple fact that she has already been born and could bear other children in the future. Her death could result in the potential loss of life of many other unborn children.

    2. 100% agree with you. Though, from my previous post, you will note that I consider forcing women to bear their rapist’s offspring abhorrent, unconscionable, and akin to the worst form of torture imaginable.

    3. Who cares about the rapist? Genes or no genes, this should only be about what is best for the victim. Period. I agree, this is not a good argument.

    4. You completely lost me here. There is nothing in this that is based in anything but fantasy. You start off well, but fail to understand something, NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO END THEIR PREGNANCY. That’s it, no one. This is their CHOICE. The only ones doing any forcing in this debate are a group of people who think they hold some higher moral ground telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies based on what they consider to be moral authority ordained by whatever religion they believe. This is about CHOICE. Just because a woman has the CHOICE to have an abortion does not mean that she will automatically go out and have one. That is insanity, but has been the basis for the pro-life debate for decades. Abortion is a medical procedure that is very useful for dealing unwanted pregnancies, especially in extreme cases (rape, incest, or harm to the mother). Give your fellow women some credit and remember that pregnancy is usually a happy, wonderful experience and that the vast majority woman would give up their lives for their children, me included.

    The CHOICE to have an abortion should never be taken lightly, I can agree with you there, but you need to come to terms with the fact that there are just mitigating circumstances in life and just because you find all abortions abhorrent, doesn’t mean that for some women it isn’t a necessity–whatever those reasons are, and that those reasons are not your business.

    You can put flowers and sunshine on pregnancies as a result of rape all you want. All that tells me is that you don’t have the slightest clue what it means to have actually experienced that level of violation. That, of course, is a good thing, but it does mean that maybe you should try to do a little more listening and a lot less preaching, because there are no flowers and sunshine for these victims. In this case, abortion is by far the better of all options.

    No is talking about these women that have been raped but choose to keep their pregnancy. While for me that would be death sentence, I am sure there are mitigating circumstances from some of these victims where they would choose to not have an abortion. I highly doubt it, and it sounds just as flowers and sunshine as your “…These children are the priceless gifts of providence, not retribution… Led by a little child, each of these ineffably sad mothers may be drawn on to love and to be loved, to reclaim the heart of life.” Nice poetry.

    I mean come on, really? What these women need is counseling and a solid support system of loved ones caring for them, not the responsibility of having to bear and then care for/give up the offspring of their rapist. Talk about adding lemon juice to the wound, or are you really that heartless?

  • http://voicefromthetrenches.wordpress.com voicefromthetrenches

    @Earl You speak of moral compasses and conscious, yet you seem to have none when it comes to the already born women that have suffered so grievously. You say that you have spent your life in the preservation of life. As a doctor, that is true, but what about the quality of those lives.
    .
    Let’s say that there is a young girl that has been raped. She is already dealing with the emotional trauma of being raped, now add to that her young age and lack of emotional maturity. From what you have been saying, she should go through the pregnancy, being reminded daily of the rape, and then bear the child. As a doctor, you should be well aware of trauma of child birth and the recovery period, as well as the stress pregnancy puts on a woman’s body, let alone the body of an underdeveloped child, now add to that to psychological trauma being relived daily throughout the pregnancy. Medically, you really believe that it is better for this young girl to take that baby to term? Medically, you see no harm that can befall the girl as a result of such a situation? Medically, you cannot see the permanent psychological scarring that might occur as a result of such a situation?
    .
    Now the baby is born. The mother is probably suffering from some form of PTSD. Now she has to decide to either keep her baby or put it up for adoption. Medically, you know that there is a hormonal reaction that occurs in women that bonds most us almost instantly to our brand new babies. If she gives up the baby, she will have to deal with the emotional pain of her rape, the resulting pregnancy, and then the post-partum depression that results from giving her child away. If she keeps her child, she will have to deal with the emotional pain of her rape, the resulting pregnancy, still possible post-partum depression, and the fact that every time she looks at this child she sees her rapist (as babies tend to look like the father for paternal bonding).
    .
    This doesn’t even get into the real-world stuff. She is a young girl, so she will probably have to drop out of high school so that she can take care of her baby. But, since she lacks formal education, she will have to get two, maybe three jobs to pay the rent and pay for the child and needed care so that she can go out and work. More than likely she will not be able to afford the proper counseling, either in time or money, she needs to over come her PTSD, so she will probably have a hard time maintaining stable employment. Add to that, every time she looks at the child she see her rapist, so, as with any human she will most likely form resentments towards her child. Also, what kind of healthy relationships will she be able to form? Etc. Etc. Etc.
    .
    Having respect for the sanctity of life is more than just whether or not the body functions properly. It is also about quality of life. The pro-life movement is so focused on the unborn, I think they have blinders on that make them fail to see the harm that can befall the already born and the loss of the potential for a wonderful life for both the mother and the baby.
    .
    No one likes abortion. Being pro-choice isn’t pro-abortion. It is pro-CHOICE.

  • earljr1

    Voicesfrom, from the outset, I have said aborting during the first trimester should be the mothers (and husband, if one should be involved) decision.
    I have also stated that you should be aware of all medical facts pertinent to your pregnancy, INCLUDING the life stage of your unborn fetus.Also provide information about help available to the mother should she decide to carry her baby to term.
    Once having relayed these facts, the physician should allow the mother to make her own decision.
    You have gone to great length, voicesfrom, conveying all of the bad things that can result from carrying your baby to term and yes, mental distress is an important element. I can also tell about another kind of mental stress I see in virtually every patient who HAS aborted a baby and that stress is guilt. It seems to prevail (for many, a lifetime) in most women who have endured this procedure.
    Once armed with the facts, voicesfrom, the decision should be yours to make.

  • http://roostertree.wordpress.com RoosterTree

    We celebrate BIRTHdays, not ‘conception days.’

  • http://jimjonesblog.wordpress.com jimjonesblog

    I’m glad that someone finally ran the dollars on this.

    All of this national huffing and puffing over a cost of $32K/yr?

    And what is the cost of a one hour of preparation and debate on this bill? With 435 representatives and thousands of staffers, the cost is easily 500% more than the potential for savings.

blog comments powered by Disqus