DollyLongstaff wrote:

Twenty weeks into Taylor Mahaffey’s pregnancy, her baby started emerging from her womb, with doctors powerless to stop it—and because of Texas’s fetal-pain law, all the hospital could do was send her home.

Daniel and Taylor Mahaffey were 20 weeks pregnant and desperately wanted their child, but when doctors informed them a complication meant the fetus had no chance of survival, they just wanted their baby’s suffering to end.

Yet because of their state’s “fetal pain” law, the married Texans say they were forced to endure a stillbirth and wait as their baby slowly died in utero.

Dolly,

How unfortunate to present this tragic event as a political issue related to abortion! Had you done due diligence you would know that the "fetal pain" law had nothing to do with this case. This was a case about inducing labor, due to a condition known as incompetent cervix, and most physicians agree that the fetus is unlikely to survive outside of the womb before 24 weeks of development. 

The hospital, St. David's, attempted several emergency procedures to keep the developing fetus inside the womb. The mother's life was not in danger and the fetus did not have a fatal defect. When a patient with a fetus not compatible with life outside the womb presents to the hospital, St. David's begins the 24-hour waiting period for parents to decide on how to proceed.

Keep in mind that St. David's is a catholic hospital where abortions are not performed (having nothing at all to do with the "fetal pain law") however there are alternatives. The parents can choose to go to another hospital where inducing labor is not an issue. After the 24 hours they chose to deliver this baby naturally. 

To quote mom Taylor,  " We lost someone precious. After three days of procedures, fear and waiting, at 17 weeks and 4 days my body just couldn't carry him any longer. It was not anyone's fault. We did everything we could do. But we couldn't save him."

Please get your facts straight Dolly, this is not a political issue!

Braveone
 

Last edited by Braveone99 (4/05/2016 5:24 pm)

Daniel and Taylor Mahaffey were 20 weeks pregnant and desperately wanted their child, but when doctors informed them a complication meant the fetus had no chance of survival, they just wanted their baby’s suffering to end.

Yet because of their state’s “fetal pain” law, the married Texans say they were forced to endure a stillbirth and wait as their baby slowly died in utero.

The Mahaffeys had begun decorating the nursery in anticipation for the little boy they planned to name Fox, after one of the Lost Boys in Peter Pan.

On Wednesday night, Taylor, 23, felt something abnormal and since their last pregnancy ended in miscarriage, they rushed to the hospital. By the time they got there, Fox’s feet were already pushing through his mother’s cervix. Doctors tried several emergency measures to stop the preterm labor, including putting Taylor on an incline in the hopes that they could perform a cervical cerclage—a procedure in which doctors stitch shut the cervix. Nothing worked. Nothing could save him.

Heartbroken, the Mahaffeys asked about their options. “The only humane thing to do at that point would be to pop the sack, and let little Fox come into this world too early to survive outside,” 29-year-old Daniel Mahaffey wrote Monday, telling his story on Reddit.

The doctors and nurses at St. David’s Medical Center in Austin cried with them, but said because of Texas law HB2, they could not help speed Taylor’s labor. Technically, the baby was healthy and the mother was healthy, so to induce labor would be an abortion, and to do it at this stage in the pregnancy would be illegal.

The Mahaffeys were sent home to wait for their baby to die or for Taylor’s labor to progress. “We cried ourselves to sleep, waiting for him to come,” Daniel said in an interview with The Daily Beast.

They prayed conflicting prayers: for a miracle that might save him and for an end to their baby’s suffering. Daniel worried his wife would hemorrhage while Taylor could feel the baby struggling inside of her, Daniel said.

When Taylor started bleeding, they went back to the hospital, but with Fox’s heart still beating, doctors couldn’t legally interfere.“Eventually she was just screaming at them to get the child out of her,” Daniel said.

After four days in and out of the hospital, the bag of waters surrounding their baby burst and Taylor delivered Fox. “One nice thing is we got to hold him,” Daniel said. “That’s the only silver lining.”

Texas is one of 12 states that bans abortions after 20 weeks post fertilization with bills ostensibly based on the wholly unscientific idea that fetuses can feel pain after that period of gestation. (A review of the evidence by the American Medical Association found that “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”) The Texas ban was passed as a provision in HB2, the 2013 law best known for requiring abortion clinics to meet the same strict standards as ambulatory surgical centers and providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals—restrictions that have closed half of the state’s abortion clinics and over which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this month.

The Texas law does come with exemptions, for cases where a woman’s life or physical health is in danger or when severe fetal abnormalities are present, conditions that the Mahaffeys did not satisfy.Bradley Price, an OBGYN who practices at St. David’s where Taylor Mahaffey was treated by another doctor:“This bill is extremely intrusive into the practice of medicine,” Price said, warning it risked Texas women’s health by denying them “the benefits of well-researched safe and proven protocols.”

Price further explained that most abortions performed after 20 weeks were on women like Taylor Mahaffey, whose fetuses had some condition that was incompatible with life.

Last edited by DollyLongstaff (4/06/2016 4:01 pm)

DollyLongstaff wrote:

According to Braveone, this tragedy had nothing to do with politics.

And so are you!
Still sticking to your story?

I'm sticking with the parents' story.
After all, they're the ones who went through it.

I'll bet you're all in for the transgender bathroom ban too.

 

Sam wrote:

Braveone99 wrote:

DollyLongstaff wrote:

I'm keeping my promise not to respond to your posts.

Yet here you are 

Actually, Dolly was clarifying his post since you came in & tried to claim he didn't check his facts. So in the interest of posting accurately, Dolly then posted more details as reported by the parents. Not sure where you got your story but I read the same article as Dolly.

Just saying.
 

Sam,

Actually, I know what Dolly was doing and support his right to do so.There are many stories online about this event however my post was not about a story, it was more about the facts related to the Fetal Pain law and the condition known as Incompetent Cervix. One having nothing to do with the other.

Braveone

Braveone99 wrote:

DollyLongstaff wrote:

I'm sticking with the parents' story.
After all, they're the ones who went through it.

I'll bet you're all in for the transgender bathroom ban too.

 

Seriously Dolly?? What does the transgender bathroom ban have to do with this topic? Do you want to dance Dolly? If so, i'm up for it!! 

I would say both have to do with ridiculous laws or legislation.

How many women and or female children are endangered of being raped or molested in public bathrooms by straight men dressed up as women?

If Texas didn't have restrictions on abortion after 20 weeks, would Taylor Mahaffey have been forced to carry a dead fetus even though doctors said the fetus had no chance of survival?

("They prayed conflicting prayers: for a miracle that might save him and for an end to their baby’s suffering. Daniel worried his wife would hemorrhage while Taylor could feel the baby struggling inside of her, Daniel said.

When Taylor started bleeding, they went back to the hospital, but with Fox’s heart still beating, doctors couldn’t legally interfere.“Eventually she was just screaming at them to get the child out of her,” Daniel said.)


Please don't play the Catholic hospital card.

The Texas law applys to public hospitals too.

Under the circustances, should the parents only option be to travel out of state?

NB: I'm signing off for the night, but I'll be happy to continue on the 'morrow.

 

Last edited by DollyLongstaff (4/16/2016 8:33 pm)

Sam wrote:

Braveone99 wrote:

Sam wrote:

Actually, Dolly was clarifying his post since you came in & tried to claim he didn't check his facts. So in the interest of posting accurately, Dolly then posted more details as reported by the parents. Not sure where you got your story but I read the same article as Dolly.

Just saying.
 

Sam,

Actually, I know what Dolly was doing and support his right to do so.There are many stories online about this event however my post was not about a story, it was more about the facts related to the Fetal Pain law and the condition known as Incompetent Cervix. One having nothing to do with the other.

Braveone

Ok , what do you think Dolly was doing?

You sure do complain a lot for someone who adds very little to this board. The "facts" are what happened in this situation in Texas, due to the fetal pain law. If you disagree with these "facts" why not show the other side (if there really is one) instead of jumping Dolly.

You seem to have a problem with Dolly. You rarely come here to post except to pick a bone with him. Now you are complaining because Dolly starts most of the threads? So what. Most of us are busy people & I enjoy waking up to Dolly's news of the day. If I wanted to start a thread, I could, but usually I am not a thread starter. 

If you would like to start a thread, do so.  But please stop coming here just to stir up trouble.
 

Sam,

Since you choose again to publicly criticize me I must respond. I "add very little to this board" could apply to the majority of PlanB members, why single me out?  As for the facts related to situation in Texas I did show the other side but you apparently chose to ignore my comments and instead accuse me of jumping on Dolly. Why would you do that? (rhetorical question not needing an answer)

You are right, I rarely post but check in frequently. When I do post it is not pick a bone with Dolly but he is pretty much the only member that posts new threads and I occasionally respond. So what. 

You seem to have not noticed but I have started new threads. Please stop accusing me of coming here just to stir up trouble. As a moderator your comments are surprising.