Last year, Ralph Northam made some commentsabout late-term abortion that sparked a great-deal of frenzy among abortion opponents: "when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example,* if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."**
*
This led to Trump commenting recently that Northam had called for babies to be “executed” - which might be a massive exaggeration - but what exactly does this quote by Northam mean? Does “non-viable” mean “an infant that is going to die within a few hours after birth?” If so, then all Northam is saying is that the infant would be kept comfortable but the parents and doctor might just allow “nature to take its course,” which might not be that controversial.
Not part of these comments, but… I recall some articles where interviews with maternity ward nurses and doctors, they said going back decades that in some places, severely malformed babies would be “allowed to die” if there was no hope they would survive long term. (I.e. missing a brain, or many vital organs, etc.) The presumption was they applied the same “no extraordinary measures” criteria used with geriatric patients in extreme dire straits.
The idea a doctor would actively cause a normal baby or full-term fetus to die because the mother didn’t want a baby is ludicrous. (Besides, who changes their mind at the 8-month mark?)
Dude, a politician tried to be too clever and it backfired on him. Nothing more needs to be thought.
It has been known to happen.
I’m assuming the vast majority of the controversy was because the “non-viable” part of the paragraph wasn’t quoted and people took it to mean that Northam was talking about normal healthy babies.
(Also, mods, please don’t GD/Election/IMHO this)
[Moderating]
I don’t see how “what did a politician really mean” can possibly be a factual question. Moving to GD.
[Not moderating]
I can’t see how what he said could possibly be twisted into “killing babies”. He didn’t even talk about a baby being allowed to die: He said that it would be resuscitated. That’s the opposite of killing.
:rolleyes:
You are being disingenuous here. He said it would be resuscitated, if thats what the mother and family wanted. Pretty big difference.
This is a topic which makes smart people lose their minds. Yeah, its stupid to claim he talked in favour of murdering babies. Its also stupid not to recognize that he spoke poorly.
We had a thread on this topic eons ago, and IIRC the answer was that while its a very miniscule percentage of abortion which result in a born alive situation, the sheer numbers of abortions means you have several dozen cases a year. And further IIRC, thr info in that thread was that the mothers wishes are expressly not considered, when deciding on a course of action in these circumstances.
Is there a citation for this?
Offering “info in that thread” as your citation? As fond as I am of the smartass symphony that 'R Us, the SDMB…well, a bit much, don’t you think? Also, just a mite unspecific.
From FactCheck.org which has cites to The New England Journal of Medicine and the CDC.:
So 143 over a period of 12 years, but the CDC notes that may be low. Not all states report data. And this data referenced deliveries earlier in pregnancy that are often at or near the limits of pre-term viability.
More from FactCheck.org:
That’s
3 in Minnesota in a year compared to 10,177 abortions statewide;
4 in four months in Arizona compared to 12,533 statewide for the full year so extrapolating that could be 12 live births from abortions over the course of a year;
0 in Oklahoma in four years with no data available for two more years (from an Oklahoma Department of Health report (pdf at link) there were 5,967 abortions per year on average in Oklahoma, so 0 live births in about 23,868 abortions over a four year period);
6 in Florida in a year compared to 70,083 abortions statewide;
and 0 in Texas in a three year period with the Guttmacher Institute estimating 55,230 abortions in Texas per year, so 0 live births in about 165,690 over a three year period.
It is clear that it is small numbers of cases so one more or fewer cases may skew the percentages quite a bit. Very, very rough estimating from the above numbers include approximately 21 live births in 282,351 abortions, for a rate of 0.74 live births per 10,000 abortions.
The Guttmacher Institute cites approximately 926,200 abortions in the United States in 2014. Using that 0.74 live births per 10,000 abortions rate there would be approximately 69 live births from abortions per year in the United States. I’d call it a few dozen cases per year. Whether between five and six dozen cases are year counts as “several dozen cases a year” as AK84 described is up to the reader to decide.
However, what is called and abortion as opposed to a pre-term delivery is another issue of concern that may cloud the statistics. Though severe fetal defect is an oft cited factor in many late term abortions another factor is maternal pre-eclampsia. With pre-eclampsia cases the baby may be born without developmental defects and with good prospects for a full *IF *if he/she can survive the hazards of prematurity. Some reporting includes such cases as later term abortions while other reporting calls them premature labor and excludes them from late term abortions. But that’s a big IF.
I lean conservative and find no issue with Dr. Northam’s statement. Unless the patient shows up in labor, chances are that doctors have plenty of time to explain that your baby’s heart isn’t working properly. A serious congenital heart defect could be detected as early as 18 weeks. Some newborns still have unexpected defects at birth though (eg: unexpected cyanosis or blue skin). If the parent (or their legal guardian) wants to resuscitate the infant this can be done, preferably by writing resuscitate in big letters on the clipboard/whiteboard during check-in. For extended life support at the hospital things get much less clear depending on state law, hospital policies, and the doctor’s determination of futility.
Perhaps it was a stupid thing for a politician to say on the record, but the dope is the straight dope.
~Max