Pregnant Woman Fights Court-Ordered Bed Rest
A Florida woman went to the hospital at 25 weeks to be assessed for premature labor. They ordered bed rest -- COURT ORDERED bed rest in the hospital, away from her children!
I'm all for providing pregnant women with the care they need. An appropriate response at this point -- when the woman demurred because she had small children to care for -- would have been a referral to a home nursing agency and/or social worker to arrange to provide care for her at home.
What's really asinine (among other aspects of this story) is that had this woman walked into an abortion clinic, she'd have had every right to deliberately have her unborn child put to death. Had she been seeking to have the child killed, the full force of law, and every court in the state, would have backed her 100%. But because she was not seeking the child's death, she was being detained against her will.
What the fuck is up with that? How crazy have we become?
I submit that a lot of it is because there is a contingent of people (like the late Eugene Glick) who assert that "the most fundamental right of women" is a dead baby. For all the talk of defending "women's choices" and "women's reproductive rights" there's never any talk of the right to care to continue a pregnancy. It's all about killing the fetus. And after hearing that shit for decade after decade, people get it into their heads that the mouthpieces of abortion rights organizations are right -- that women really do prefer their babies dead and can't be trusted with them.
4 comments:
Yeah, I agree -- and the worst thing is that this is going to be fodder for the pro-aborts who say, "See?!? this is what happens when fetuses have rights!" -- It's what *is* already happening (it's all over birth blogs and my f/b). But there is a big difference between the right to kill your child and the right to choose between two options with uncertain outcomes. I'd like to know more of this case, to see what is the basis for this. And who is paying for her care, and for somebody to watch her other children, etc., etc.
Until it becomes illegal for pregnant women to smoke or use alcohol, and until it becomes a special added offense to use illegal drugs when pregnant, or to be unmarried and pregnant (the rates of preterm birth and neonatal/infant mortality are much higher for smokers and unwed mothers), then it shouldn't be illegal for pregnant women to make choices that are in the best interests of themselves *and* their baby (which of course precludes murdering them).
It also bothers me that this woman did not have representation at court, so it was basically the hospital's lawyers presenting a one-sided case, and the judge (probably not medically knowledgeable) agreeing, without hearing any opposing opinion.
People assert power over others because they can.
That being said, this woman SHOULD defer to her doctor's orders as her baby's life and her health may be in jeopardy. Common sense should drive this woman, not busy-bodying from special interest groups.
This is assuming that the doctor is correct. You are aware of something called "a second opinion," aren't you? Doctors are fallible, and he may be wrong. Do a little research into prescribed bedrest for pregnancy, and you'll see that it doesn't always help; in fact, some studies have shown no benefit at all. One study in Australia done on women pregnant with twins had half of the women put on bedrest with the others on normal activity, and the women who were put on bedrest actually had *more* preterm birth than those who had normal activity. There may be indications for bedrest -- I certainly don't claim to know all of the ins and outs of when constantly lying down will change the course of a pregnancy, and especially don't know the indications that this woman had -- but to deny this woman her right to choose or refuse medical care as she saw fit, or to even go another hospital where they might be less hostile to her, is appalling to me.
She should defer, out of love to her child, IF her doctor is right that being forced into a hospital bed in an adversarial position, separated from her other children, and home bedrest is not as good. But she also should be allowed a second opinion, and medical-legal representation before a judge who may not have any more medical knowledge than an average citizen, and is only hearing one side of the story.
Not being under a rock, yes, I have heard of second opinions. I've also seen people do things contrary to common sense.
The ACLU and perhaps some doctors probably couldn't care less about this woman or her circumstances. But then again there might be a very valid reason for this woman to rest.
Just my thoughts.
Post a Comment