Nebraska’s new abortion law forced Danielle Deaver to give birth to a baby that she and her doctors knew would die minutes later. The law prohibits abortions after the 20th week, except in specific situations when the mother’s life is in immediate danger.
Deaver's one-pound, ten-ounce girl, Elizabeth, was born December 8th. Deaver and her husband watched, held and comforted the baby as it died 15 minutes later.
State Sen. Mike Flood, the sponsor of Nebraska's anti-abortion bill, told the Des Moines Register: "Even in these situations where the baby has a terminal condition or there's not much chance of surviving outside of the womb, my point has been and remains that is still a life."
However, Deaver told Des Moines Register: "Our hands were tied. The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God. I feel like I know how to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should have been mine, and it wasn't because of a law."
Doctors told the Deavers that there was less than a 10 percent chance the fetus would have a heartbeat and the capacity to breathe at birth; this was because a lack of fluid would cause the baby's muscle tissues to shorten, damaging the developing lungs.
Deaver was in her 22nd week of pregnancy when her water broke. Two weeks too late for an abortion, per the state law.
Julie Schmit-Albin, of Nebraska Right to Life, told the AP that the baby's death was better than a painful abortion: "We acknowledge the tragedy that occurs with a poor prenatal diagnosis for the baby. But isn't it more humane for the baby to die in a loving manner with comfort care and in the arms of her parents than by the intentional painful death through abortion?"
This story is very unclear. In the actual letter Ms. Deaver sent to legislators around the country, she states that what she wanted to do was induce labor shortly after the water broke -- not have an abortion where the baby is "chopped up and sucked out." She wanted to do this to prevent what would be a week of suffering for her baby. Instead, the baby was crushed by her own mother's uterus for a week before she was delivered. I am sure Ms. Deaver would not have held and loved her baby any less if she was born by induced labor. This legislation was poorly written -- nevermind utterly ridiculous. All these people who are pro-life - go adopt a child from a shelter before you tell other people what to do.
@letitsnowletitsnowletitsnow
"She wanted to do this to prevent what would be a week of suffering for her baby. Instead, the baby was crushed by her own mother's uterus for a week before she was delivered."
"This legislation was poorly written"
I am very pleased that you have arrived here, apparently with information that others haven't had (including myself), about the medical science (your first quote above) and the law (your second quote).
I would be very interested in hearing a detailed explanation of your second point, an explanation that referred to the wording of the legislation, to the good intended by the legislation, and to the harm inflicted on Elizabeth because the drafters of the legislation didn't think of Elizabeth's circumstances (as described in the first quote), nor the legislators when debating the legislation.
In particular:
What studies support the hypothesis that any pain Elizabeth suffered could have been lessened by labour-inducing drugs administered to her mother as soon as her waters broke?
How could the legislation be amended, to afford the protection it does to other babies, without actually harming babies in exceptional circumstances like Elizabeth's?
Oh, yeah that baby felt sooooo much love and comfort in that 15 minutes, where it was almost entirely unable to breathe. 100% of its lifetime was spent in abject pain as it slowly died, while giant unfocused warm blobs cooed reassuring noises at it, and after being allowed to develop a much, much greater capacity to feel pain than it had back when the mother's water broke and its fate was sealed.
For the folks bringing up the "tearing apart" emotional argument, the correct analogy would be: would you prefer to be torn apart while you are in a coma and never gain consciousness (akin to a 24-week old fetus), or more slowly while you're fully awake (like a delivered newborn)?
Senator Flood seems to be of the opinion that anything that can be called a "life" must be denied any amount of mercy and allowed to suffer the full extent of pain that nature is able to deliver. This wasn't even a case of a child with any chance of surviving, but something that had only a 10% chance of living until birth.
Absolutely no good comes from misguided attempts to legislate morality, there's only the greater capacity to torture all involved.
cityboy you are so ignorant it's a shame. A 24 week fetus feels pain. An 8 week embryo feels pain inside of the womb and outside of the womb and it has been proven by tests. This 22 week fetus did feel pain. If you would have pinched it or did something uncomfortable to it, it would have recoiled. Go get your information dummy. Thats easy to do. It's much more than a blob. I suppose your brain is just a blob.
I have to say that's very well said.
Oh my gosh, it's all about her isn't it. Let's cut the baby up in pieces and suck her out so that my delicate sensibilities don't have to be confronted with her imperfection and subsequent death. That baby had 15 minutes of love instead of terror and savagery and perhaps when the mother grows up a little bit she will come to appreciate that somebody had the decency to make sure she had the privilege of being with that baby instead of finding out about the ugliness of the abortion procedure after the fact. Ultimately she gets to leave with a clear conscience no matter what, even though the pro-killers are whining about it.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but you do realize that even a normal child's thought process at the time of birth is incredibly dissimilar to even a toddler's right? In the sense that adults understand love, I doubt a newborn is capable of it, even if they know who 'mom' is in some fashion. Now, imagine the possible emotional/thought range of a newborn who developed incorrectly and is now dying painfully over the course of 15 minutes. How much love and comfort could this child possibly have experienced? Neither of us can know for sure, but I'm equally sure that you are wildly overestimating it.
Did you miss the part about the baby developing incorrectly and then soon dying outside the womb? You aren't even wearing rosy glasses here but rather blue blockers that are spray painted red on the inside.
This is a very sad outcome to a pregnancy however as stated in the story:"Deaver and her husband watched, held and comforted the baby as it died 15 minutes later." It makes me think about all those innocent babies that no one is able to hold and comfort as they suffer while bleeding because their mother chose to have them crushed and sliced up alive and expelled in pieces from her womb. Well, I suppose this mother believed it would have been better to have her baby killed as described rather than to just hold and love the baby for the short time she had with it.
90% of abortions are done within the first month or two of pregnancy. At that point most of those fetus's are virtually unformed blobs indistinguishable from all the rest of the tissue and blood that comes out along with it. It feels no pain, does not look human and is smaller than your thumbnail. If you'd like to hold the blobs to make yourself feel better about it then you go right ahead.