That's the sad story of L.C.:

L.C., the young woman in the video, lives in poverty in Lima, Peru. At the age of 13, she was raped repeatedly by a 34-year-old man, but when she discovered that she was pregnant, he denied that the child could be his. In desperation,tried to commit suicide by jumping from a window, but didn't die; instead, she lay on the ground for hours, paralyzed. When she was finally found and taken to the hospital, doctors refused to operate because she was pregnant, but also refused her family's petition for a therapeutic abortion. Abortion in Peru is illegal except in rare circumstances. One of these circumstances, however, is when the mother's health and life are at risk, which was clearly the case with L.C. Because of the severity of her injuries, L.C. eventually suffered a miscarriage, but it wasn't until several weeks after the miscarriage and four months after she was told that she needed surgery that she finally received the spinal procedure she needed. By this time, though, the surgery could have little to no effect, and she remained paralyzed.

In a case that's both tragic and absolutely maddening, a series of Polish doctors allowed a pregnant woman to die from a colon condition because they feared that treatment would threaten her fetus. Edyta (a pseudonym adopted to protect the family) was two months pregnant when she was diagnosed with a painful colon disease that was aggravated by her pregnancy. She searched for a doctor who would treat her condition, and was repeatedly refused; eventually her illness worsened until she miscarried and died... Edyta, and women like her, fall into a serious deficiency in Polish law for conscientious objection (a number of European countries have similar guidelines). Doctors who conscientiously object to a medical procedure that might threaten the health of a fetus are supposed to refer their patient to a doctor who will perform the procedure, but there is little oversight; doctors also have a tendency to "express concern" about the fetus without actually telling their patients that they have ethical objections [and therefore do not have to refer the patient to a Doctor that does not object]. The whole situation reveals the futility of the maternal-fetal conflict. Edyta's health was seen in opposition to her fetus' life, but in reality, the colon disease ended up killing both of them. Even if there had been a risk of miscarriage, the Polish doctors had an ethical obligation to save the mother's life, and hope that the fetus lived also. The choice of "conscientious objection" in this case was, quite simply, misogynistic and perverse.

You can watch her tell the story here . L.C.'s life, choice, and agency are unimportant, only forcing her to give birth is, no matter the circumstances. Where we see preventable tragedy, they see "victory," even if the the consequences of their abortion restrictions leave a 13-year-old rape victim paralyzed for life. Unfortunately L.C.'s circumstances aren't uncommon, where anti-choice zealots elevate the life of a fetus over the life of a grown (and in this case, not even) woman Of course "pro-lifers" would never, ever ever admit that their anti-choice policies are responsible for the deaths of Edyta and the magnified suffering and paralysis of L.C. Unfortunately these scenarios are headed to the United States also, just recently an Idaho pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a drug that controls bleeding after an abortion . These "conscientious objectors" become real world death-panels for some women.

These diaries aren't easy to write or read, but what's that compared to the horror forced upon these women because they were denied access to abortion? Unfortunately, as these stories make some of us literally sick, they make some on the Right giddy with "victory" at forcing another unwanted birth. Today gratis4 shared her remarkable story of being forced to birth her child with Potter's syndrome. Unfortunately she's not the only one, although the couple in the next story are allowed that choice, it is still heartbreaking.

Mary Vargas and her husband were very excited to Mary was pregnant again. At 19 weeks they had ultrasound which revealed Mary's uterus contained little amniotic fluid, the classic symptom of Potter's syndrome. But because Potter's syndrome isn't a threat to the mother's physical health, women are denied access to a "late-term" abortion in several states. The fetus though, the one "pro-lifers" supposedly care so much about, is "crushed by the weight of the mother’s organs" and as Mary witnessed, “The baby’s limbs were bent and broken, and he had facial deformities from being crushed.” As if that weren't heart wrenching enough for the couple, because they were federal employees their health insurance could not cover an abortion, even in the tragic cases of babies that have no hope of surviving upon birth. The procedure would cost them between $4,000-$12,000.

“Part of the strategy of [anti-abortion activists] is to demonize these women and make them into unsympathetic characters who view second-trimester abortion as a trivial decision,” Dr. Greene says. “I have never met a woman who didn’t agonize over this decision.”

That's America thanks to the "pro-life": vilified for ending their fetus's suffering, left heartbroken, and out thousands of dollars. Yet another "victory" for the zealots. And if that weren't enough for the "pro-lifers":



Hospitals around the country have begun to require that all abortions after 20 weeks be preceded by lethal injection — when the fetus is killed in utero via a shot of digoxin or potassium chloride. The doctor typically injects the drug into the umbilical cord, amniotic fluid or fetal heart via a needle through the patient’s belly the day before the scheduled termination. These injections can be painful for the woman and increase her risk for infection and spontaneous delivery away from the clinic or hospital. “Nowhere else in medicine do doctors require a patient to go through an invasive procedure like this purely for legal reasons,” Dr. Nichols says. “As doctors we take an oath to do no harm, yet these injections — while the risk is low — are potentially harmful to the mother. And we make patients get them not to benefit them, but to protect ourselves from going to jail. I’m forced to choose my well-being over that of my patients.”

Two weeks later, I had an MRI, and my worst nightmare was realized - we learned the baby was missing a main piece of its brain. The part that connects the right and left hemispheres literally wasn't there. Additionally, the surface of the brain was malformed and severely underdeveloped. Despite all my prenatal care and testing, this was not detected until I was 7 1/2 months along. And no amount of surgery or physical therapy could change this horrific diagnosis. We learned that our baby would have had ongoing seizures and would lack the physical coordination to suck, swallow, feed, walk, talk or know its environment - if it survived being born. The sonogram already showed the baby was not swallowing. And in hindsight, I believe the constant movements of the baby were the result of spasms caused by the brain abnormalities. If we had carried our baby to term, we would have needed a resuscitation order in place before the birth, as our child would have been incapable of living without significant medical assistance.

[Dana] Weinstein didn't need an abortion and this becomes crystal clear later in her piece where her and her husbands "wants" are mentioned. I can never understand it when pro-choicers who glorify "choice" try to act like their abortion was needed and they didn't have a choice.--Jill Stanek

Mary chose to tell her story, in hopes that Representatives would listen and not placate anti-choice zealots by further restricting access to abortion . She was joined by Dana who wrote about her abortion anguish to the Baltimore Sun How do the anti-choice zealots respond to these very real stories? As usual, with callousness Why doesn't Weinstein need an abortion according to "pro-lifer" Jill Stanek? Because Dana greedily did not want "our child's existence to depend solely on feeding tubes and machines...to bring a child into this world who would only be here in a vegetative state..." and "did the most loving, humane act a parent could do - put an end to our baby's suffering". You wouldn't think this level of cruelty aimed at a grieving women like Dana could exist, but it does, amongst the "pro-life" (if you don't believe me read the comments of Jill Stanek's post), who desire to arbitrarily determine what would be best for a complete stranger. To them Dana is just a greedy uncaring bitch who killed her child.

In 2008 Lynda Waddington wrote an "Open Letter to Obama: A Personal Perspective on Late-Term Abortion" published in the Iowa Independent, where she too shares her story of a necessary late-term abortion because the fetus suffered from Anencephaly:

The child I carried remained alive only because of his connection to me. For all practical purposes, I was serving as a life support system and, as soon as that system was removed, he would die. We did eventually make the decision to terminate the pregnancy instead of carrying to term. It wasn’t a decision we made lightly. It wasn’t a decision that brought us relief or joy. We just knew that for us — for our family — it was the best of several horrific options. When I phoned the doctor the next day to let him know our decision, he had news of his own to share. The state had denied our waiver, mandating that we would have to carry until either the child died or my body began labor on its own. The doctor provided our family with the name of a doctor in a nearby state that did not have the same legal requirements. Had the state board permitted the waiver, our insurance would have been obligated to pay for the procedure. Instead, it took us several more days to raise enough money to pay the out-of-pocket medical expenses and the travel expenses. The procedure took two very long and agonizing days. This was not because I was in a state of physical pain, but because of the emotional toll. Whether a loved one’s departure is expected or not, it is never easy to say goodbye. I’ve learned a great deal in the 13 years that have followed. I’ve met other women who were also forced to say goodbye to children because of anencephaly, a neural tube defect that results in the absence of brain and skull. Some of those women, like me, chose to terminate their pregnancies. Others opted to carry to term. We all grieve our losses. For a long time I felt guilty, that maybe I took the “easy way” out of a difficult situation. After all, I did not have to stand in line at the grocery store while strangers made small talk about my pregnancy. I didn’t have to answer difficult questions from my three-year-old daughter. I didn’t have to lie awake for nights on end dreading the time when my body would ultimately betray me and begin labor. When I finally broke down to a friend who had carried her anencephalic child to term about my personal guilt, she cried and told me that she had always thought she had taken the “easy way” out. Because of her strong desire for her older children to have a solid support system, she felt as if she could not terminate the pregnancy — that family and friends would not accept the decision and that, therefore, they would not make themselves available to shoulder the family’s grief afterward. The two of us have come to understand that there is no “easy way” out of the situation we were handed. We both did what we thought was best for our families at that moment in time. I’ve been asked on several occasions to share my experience with late term abortion. To date I’ve spoken with people who run the gamut of views in the reproductive health debate. When I end my story, it is always with the question that I would like for you to answer now: “If your loved one was placed on life support and attending physicians said there was no chance of life continuing without the machines, who do you want to make the decision as to when and if life support is removed?

To the anti-choicers the answer is an obviousone: why themselves of course! Who else should be allowed to make the decision for the rest of us but people like Jill Stanek and her ilk? After all who are we to think a woman should have any say over her reproductive system?

And in case you wanted to read one more, there's "Healing wounds" by our own rhubarb.

For many Republicans "pro-life" only goes so far:

Doctors say at least seven women in Nebraska have opted for abortions because they fear they can't afford the cost of prenatal care since the state stopped paying for it. OneWorld Health Center in Omaha has had six women who have decided to get abortions after the state dropped their prenatal coverage, said Dr. Kristine McVea, director of the clinic that serves low-income patients. In light of the reported abortions, senators are looking at attaching that bill to other pro-life pieces of legislation, said Omaha Sen. Heath Mello. But Gov. Dave Heineman has not changed his stand.

Heineman, who had threatened to veto the prenatal care legislation, says this is an immigration issue and he will not endorse providing tax-funded benefits to illegal immigrants.

Republicans like Heineman don't mind if the aborted baby is Latino, despite the obvious fact that these immigrants pay sales taxes, and would be happy to pay taxes if naturalized. This just goes to show how important life is to them: less important than money, that's for sure.