I’m now convinced that there is at least some doubt as to whether what was describe in the article I linked to was an abortion. I wonder what data the creator of the article used to claim that it was an abortion- is there anything that was left out?
The blogger who reposted the article definitely describes it as an abortion. The original article (from the late '90s) does not come to that conclusion. And I don’t think there’s any doubt here: they didn’t have an abortion.
Whoa! Don’t overextend yourself there, Andy.
I based my rant on this snip of the article:
I drew my conclusions from that last sentence. Today though I am having my doubts. I retract my concerns, pending better information. Personally though, I’m currently leaning towards WhyNot’s take.
She did not have a direct abortion. However, if abortion were illegal, a case could be made for her causing the infection, or being an “unfit mother” and having her other children taken away because she wasn’t willing to wait a week, as anti-abortion do claim that j21 weeks is the time of viability.
I still have my doubts (as expressed above), but I found this argument for why what the Santorums did should be considered an abortion from this link:
"From what I gathered, what happened is consistent with an emergency second-term abortion, the kind that Mr. Santorum wants to make illegal. First, the foetus was indeed dying and endangering the life of the Karen Santorum. It’s not clear if labour had already begun or if it would have started soon, but one thing is not disputed: the doctors injected pitocin (a drug used to induce delivery or an abortion, depending on the stage of pregnancy) to hasten it. Waiting for a natural delivery would have taken too long, and labour could have stopped or been too slow, because Karen was already ill.
This is a drug-induced abortion of a non-viable foetus. Without it, Karen could have died of sepsis while waiting for nature to follow its course. But the Santorums still think that all abortions should be illegal!
Another thing to ponder: the case of Karen Santorum highlights the fact that it’s extremely difficult to draw clear lines in the sand when it comes to abortions. Some pregnancies are doomed anyway, either because the foetus is not viable or the mother is badly ill, or both, but it’s how these things play out that decide if both mother and expected child die, or only one of them."
More on Pitocin (apparently synthetic oxytocin)- from the link:
"What is Pitocin (oxytocin)?
Oxytocin is a natural hormone that causes the uterus to contract.
Oxytocin is used to induce labor, strengthen labor contractions during childbirth, control bleeding after childbirth, or to induce an abortion."
It isn’t at all “clear” that they injected pitocin.
Santorum is bad enough. There is no need to make up stuff to make him look worse.
I’m not sure where this is coming from. This quote comes from a comment posted after one of the articles. The commenter links to another news article that also doesn’t mention the drug.
Not sure where the commenter learned of the pitocin, but hereis one source- from the (NYT) article:
"The childbirth in 1996 was a source of terrible heartbreak – the couple were told by doctors early in the pregnancy that the baby Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and would survive only for a short time outside the womb. According to Karen Santorum’s book, ‘‘Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,’’ she later developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant. After resisting at first, she allowed doctors to give her the drug Pitocin to speed the birth. Gabriel lived just two hours. "
Please let me know if I made anything up- I certainly hope I haven’t!
Pitocin must be really bad stuff if it’s worse than injecting santorum! :eek:
I guess I’m not a very good liberal - the first thing I felt after reading that article was how terrible that whole experience must have been for them.
As much of a misguided, even hateful ideologue that Santorum is, he’s still a husband and father. And above all else, I don’t feel that he’s a hypocrite - he seems to genuinely believe in his Catholic ideology. Not that I can respect Santorum for that, but putting myself in his shoes, I can’t imagine the anguish he and his wife were feeling when faced with their choices.
That said, I’m still holding out hope that he’ll be caught in a torrid affair with a male Cher impersonator in the next few months.
I have no problem with the choices he made with his family. My problem lies solely with his politics. I’m attacking him for his (possibly) hypocritical political stance. I should mention that I have a problem with most of his political stances whether they’re hypocritical or not.
Giving conflicting reports, I don’t think we can be certain whether Pitocin was given or not without medical records which, of course, are private. Given that they specifically say in the OP’s linked article that they declined medication to hasten delivery, I’m more prepared to believe that version, but of course that could be artifice.
However, I will say that I was taught that Pitocin will not, on its own, cause labor in a 19 week pregnancy. It will hasten labor that has already begun spontaneously, but if the cervix isn’t ripe and soft or the uterus already contracting, Pitocin won’t work alone. You have to give something else first before Pitocin will induce labor if the body isn’t ready.
So, honestly, I think even if they *did *get Pitocin that most people wouldn’t call it “an abortion” if they thought about it. The labor must have started spontaneously on its own, whether or not Pitocin was given to hasten it. Abortion isn’t spontaneous, it’s medically induced. (Y’know, except when it’s a “spontaneous abortion” - medical speak for a miscarriage.)
Crown Prince of Irony, totally. We didn’t have the surgery, but my daughter and my uterus were infected, and we were given the news that we’d have to deliver now. We chose to do it by c-section and try to save her. Because she was 4 weeks older than this fetus, we had that choice, which the Santorums did not. I have nothing but compassion and empathy for that slimesucking bigot’s horrible experience with the miscarriage of his son. Even slimesucking bigots have paternal feelings.
I don’t disagree, but Rick Santorum is on record as opposing a medical exception for abortion. Given his own life circumstances, I should think he would be more inclined toward both compassion and responsibility.
He opposed a medical exception when he was arguing in favour of a partial birth abortion ban. Jesus Christ, would it hurt you people to read for five seconds before you accuse someone of doing something offensive?
Pot. Kettle.
We’re not in the Pit here. Please tone it down.
I don’t think it’s so clear- this is from the link in the post you object to:
“SANTORUM: When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, “Why don’t we just ban all abortions?” Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.”
That sounds to me like he’s talking about all abortions- responding to the members’ questions.