Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler, Texas) wants women to carry nonviable/deceased fetus to full term

[RavenSky]

Brings to mind the woman who died in Ireland because she was having a miscarriage, but doctors wouldn't remove the fetus because of anti-abortion laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

My cousin carried to term a foetus with anencaphaly that she was told wouldn't survive more than a few hours after birth, because legally she wasn't entitled to abort it as her life wasn't in danger. She could have done what lots of Irish women do and travel over to Britain (Liverpool seems to be the place to go) and had it safely and legally aborted there without fuss, but for reasons I'm not sure about she chose to carry it to term.

It's a really sick situation to force someone into.

That is the sickest kind of cruelty to do to a woman. I can't even imagine the emotional pain your sister went through.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...nt-Women-To-Carry-Deceased-Fetuses-Full-Term#

How do so many of these sick fuckers get elected?

Saying no fetal defect abortions doesn't say no threat to the mother abortions.

DailyKos isn't a trustworthy source as this article title shows.

The headline says nothing about the mother. The bit I quoted was quoting Schaefer himself.

How about you provide your own choice of article that makes this proposal any less sick.

Here is Salon's take on it:

As Andrea Grimes first reported in RH Reality Check, Republican State Representative Matt Schaefer has recently proposed an amendment to the Health and Safety Code for medical facilities that would “prohibit the performance of an abortion at the facility on the basis that the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality.” And as he explained last month on Facebook, “Fetal abnormalities should not justify taking the life of unborn babies.” In other words, regardless of the viability of a fetus, Schaefer would like to make sure that a woman be forced to carry it as long as possible. Why? Because as he sees it, those fetuses “are going to suffer, they’re going to feel pain” and well, “That’s part of the human condition, when sin entered the world, and it grieves us all.” Grimes notes that Schaefer’s clever idea to legislate suffering “was tacked on as an amendment to a bill about the bureaucratic operations of the state health department, as if it were some kind of especially abhorrent afterthought.” Houston Rep. Jessica Farrar, meanwhile, boggled that “I won’t even go into the level of misogyny I have experienced this session.” Appallingly, the bill passed before State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer quickly filed a legislative point of order that put it back under review.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/whe...omen_to_carry_non_viable_pregnancies_to_term/

Still sick

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying no fetal defect abortions doesn't say no threat to the mother abortions.

DailyKos isn't a trustworthy source as this article title shows.

The headline says nothing about the mother. The bit I quoted was quoting Schaefer himself.

How about you provide your own choice of article that makes this proposal any less sick.

Here is Salon's take on it:

As Andrea Grimes first reported in RH Reality Check, Republican State Representative Matt Schaefer has recently proposed an amendment to the Health and Safety Code for medical facilities that would “prohibit the performance of an abortion at the facility on the basis that the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality.” And as he explained last month on Facebook, “Fetal abnormalities should not justify taking the life of unborn babies.” In other words, regardless of the viability of a fetus, Schaefer would like to make sure that a woman be forced to carry it as long as possible. Why? Because as he sees it, those fetuses “are going to suffer, they’re going to feel pain” and well, “That’s part of the human condition, when sin entered the world, and it grieves us all.” Grimes notes that Schaefer’s clever idea to legislate suffering “was tacked on as an amendment to a bill about the bureaucratic operations of the state health department, as if it were some kind of especially abhorrent afterthought.” Houston Rep. Jessica Farrar, meanwhile, boggled that “I won’t even go into the level of misogyny I have experienced this session.” Appallingly, the bill passed before State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer quickly filed a legislative point of order that put it back under review.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/whe...omen_to_carry_non_viable_pregnancies_to_term/

Still sick

I'm not saying it's not sick. It most certainly is sick. I'm saying that the headline added stuff that wasn't in the bill.

 

[RavenSky]

The headline says nothing about the mother. The bit I quoted was quoting Schaefer himself.

How about you provide your own choice of article that makes this proposal any less sick.

Here is Salon's take on it:

As Andrea Grimes first reported in RH Reality Check, Republican State Representative Matt Schaefer has recently proposed an amendment to the Health and Safety Code for medical facilities that would “prohibit the performance of an abortion at the facility on the basis that the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality.” And as he explained last month on Facebook, “Fetal abnormalities should not justify taking the life of unborn babies.” In other words, regardless of the viability of a fetus, Schaefer would like to make sure that a woman be forced to carry it as long as possible. Why? Because as he sees it, those fetuses “are going to suffer, they’re going to feel pain” and well, “That’s part of the human condition, when sin entered the world, and it grieves us all.” Grimes notes that Schaefer’s clever idea to legislate suffering “was tacked on as an amendment to a bill about the bureaucratic operations of the state health department, as if it were some kind of especially abhorrent afterthought.” Houston Rep. Jessica Farrar, meanwhile, boggled that “I won’t even go into the level of misogyny I have experienced this session.” Appallingly, the bill passed before State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer quickly filed a legislative point of order that put it back under review.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/whe...omen_to_carry_non_viable_pregnancies_to_term/

Still sick

I'm not saying it's not sick. It most certainly is sick. I'm saying that the headline added stuff that wasn't in the bill.

So like the other article said.... excuse the fuck out of me, he doesn't want women to carry DEAD fetuses, just DYING ones

Sick

 

[Keith&Co.]

So like the other article said.... excuse the fuck out of me, he doesn't want women to carry DEAD fetuses, just DYING ones

Sick

Well, the law doesn't say 'dead' ones, but Rep. Schaefer could still WANT them to. He obviously wants to punish a woman who might even consider an abortion.
And he might well be of the opinion that doctors could misdiagnose a dead fetus...


On the other hand, removing dead baby-flavored tissue from inside a womb is a D&C, isn't it? Not an abortion?
When our first pair of twins died, that was the procedure they performed.
So an abortion law shouldn't have any impact on that, anyway.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Saying no fetal defect abortions doesn't say no threat to the mother abortions.

DailyKos isn't a trustworthy source as this article title shows.

The headline says nothing about the mother. The bit I quoted was quoting Schaefer himself.

How about you provide your own choice of article that makes this proposal any less sick.

Here is Salon's take on it:

As Andrea Grimes first reported in RH Reality Check, Republican State Representative Matt Schaefer has recently proposed an amendment to the Health and Safety Code for medical facilities that would “prohibit the performance of an abortion at the facility on the basis that the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality.” And as he explained last month on Facebook, “Fetal abnormalities should not justify taking the life of unborn babies.” In other words, regardless of the viability of a fetus, Schaefer would like to make sure that a woman be forced to carry it as long as possible. Why? Because as he sees it, those fetuses “are going to suffer, they’re going to feel pain” and well, “That’s part of the human condition, when sin entered the world, and it grieves us all.” Grimes notes that Schaefer’s clever idea to legislate suffering “was tacked on as an amendment to a bill about the bureaucratic operations of the state health department, as if it were some kind of especially abhorrent afterthought.” Houston Rep. Jessica Farrar, meanwhile, boggled that “I won’t even go into the level of misogyny I have experienced this session.” Appallingly, the bill passed before State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer quickly filed a legislative point of order that put it back under review.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/whe...omen_to_carry_non_viable_pregnancies_to_term/

Still sick

This man is very ill.

But probably not ill enough to seek out pain and suffering for himself. Go figure.