A Blog About Choice

I realized I was posting wayyy too much pro-choice content on my personal blog, so I'm breaking it up a little.

[flufftail-finfoot-blog]

A Gianna Jessen Masterpost

Though a full investigation has never been conducted (to the best of my knowledge), I still believe that it can be demonstrated that Gianna Jessen has fabricated most or all of her story. The articles cited here are included at the end of this post in the bibliography. 1. The Timescale The basic summary of her story is that she was born in a botched saline abortion attempt that her mother (henceforth referred to as “Tina”) sought at some point late in her pregnancy. I am using the phrase “at some point” because the exact time frame varies between versions. In 1991, when Jessen started her career, an article in The New York Times states that she was born at “almost 7 months,” which could be about 29 to 30 weeks. However, later articles, as well as the content of her own speech before Congress in 1996, inflate the gestational age even more, to 7.5 months (about 32 weeks) (Day; Jessen; Womack). One reports it to be 7 months (about 30 weeks) (Prismall). Meanwhile, another article from 2008, quoting a 1995 biography about her written by Jessica Shaver, puts the gestational age at 29.5 weeks, which is about 6 months (Henig). This raises one of many questions about Jessen’s story: Why is it that she cannot get her story straight about such a basic detail of her own birth, especially if she has the medical records to prove it as she claims? While these differences may seem small at first, they are actually of major legal and medical importance. Saline abortions were still in use at the time of Jessen’s birth, but have since become extremely rare in the United States. They were traditionally used to end pregnancies in the second semester, between the ages of 16 and 24 weeks (“Instillation abortion”). Even with the generous estimate of 29.5 weeks, the date of Tina’s botched abortion is well out of this narrow window. “But wait,” Jessen’s defenders cry. “Maybe the reason why the abortion was botched was because it was performed too late.” If true, the scenario this argument sets up is extremely unlikely as well for legal reasons. Jessen’s birth year (1977) occurred several years after Roe v. Wade (1973), which set the age of viability (and therefore restricted abortion) the start of the third trimester, or at 27 weeks. (“Pregnancy”; “Roe v. Wade”). Every single one of the purported gestational ages of Jessen’s birth still fall after this 27-week limit, and therefore are in the third trimester. Prior to Roe, California prohibited all abortions except in the cases of health risk, rape, incest, or a damaged fetus (Lokal_Profil). While Roe would have struck down this law for the first and second trimesters, it still would have been entirely enforceable in the third trimester. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that post-Roe Tina would have been able to procure an abortion in the third trimester without a serious medical reason, considering how late in the pregnancy the abortion took place. At this point Jessen’s defenders could counter with the claim that Jessen’s mother was undergoing an abortion for her own health, or that she sought an abortion from a back-alley abortionist. While only Jessen and Tina know the truth, it is still possible to infer some conclusions from the known details of the story. Tina was apparently a 17-year-old single woman with an unwanted pregnancy, though why she suddenly wanted to end it so late in the pregnancy is unclear. However, Jessen reports that Tina is “sorry” about having had the abortion done (Lewin). She has also characterized her mother’s state of mind as selfish, complaining that she had to “bear the scars” of the decision that her mother thought was “only hers to make” (Womack; Elliott). Both of these details imply that Jessen considers Tina’s abortion not the result of necessity, but irresponsibility, a motif featured in many a pro-life fable. As for the possibility of a back-alley abortionist, Jessen also claims to have had the birth certificate signed by the abortion doctor, along with a note that her birth was the result of the botched saline abortion (Elliott; Lewin). If this were true, the doctor would have been easily identified and prosecuted for his illegal activities. It should be also be noted that Jessen’s medical records, including her birth certificate, are currently sealed and confidential. Her mother, “Tina,” has also not stepped forward to independently verify any of Jessen’s claims (though, to be honest, I wouldn’t blame her). In addition to the confusion about the timeframe of Jessen’s birth, there is also conflicting information about when and how Jessen discovered the “truth” about her past. The 1991 Times article claims that she was told about her mother when she was 14, after drawing a connection between herself and the “fetuses in formaldehyde around the house.” Coincidentally, this is the same year she gave her presentation at a National Right to Life convention that sparked her speaking career (Lewin). But a 2005 article claims she realized it at the age of 12 because she wondered why she was different from other children at school (Day). It is possible that there is a version of events that reconciles these two different variations of the story, but I find the lack of a thorough, established timeline somewhat suspicious. At this point, it should be becoming more and more clear that Jessen’s story has some serious gaping holes that have yet to be adequately explained with corroborating evidence. However, the issues do not end here. 2. Medical inaccuracies The questionable aspects of Jessen’s story are made further evident from the lack of consistency between details of her testimony and scientific knowledge. A common pro-life claim regarding saline abortions, besides that they are common in the United States today, is that they chemically scald fetuses in cruel and disfiguring ways. Similarly, Jessen claims that the saline abortion “burned [her] alive” in the womb, going on to say that this event also gave her lasting fear of fire (Day; Prismall). The latter part of her claim should be obviously laughable to anyone with a bit of common sense, as no one retains memories from the time they were an infant, let alone from when they were a fetus. However, it is the former part of her claim (that the saline abortion burned her) that will be examined more closely. If you’ve completed a high school chemistry course, you should know that a saline solution is formed when a salt is placed into a solvent (usually water), and the ions of that salt separate. For example, when sodium chloride (NaCl) is placed into a water solvent (H2O), it will dissolve into ions according to this formula:     NaCl –> Na+ + Cl-   These ions then float around freely in the solution. The resulting saline solution can occur at various concentrations. People routinely swim in 34.2% saline solutions with no ill effects (“Dead Sea”). They can even drink saltwater, and unless it is boiling hot, it will not burn their insides. However, they will feel nauseous due to the electrolytic imbalance induced by the sudden intake of Na+ and Cl- ions. Electrolytic balance is crucial for the function of many organs in organisms’ bodies, such as the heart. Remember this as you read and consider the following. The saline solution mentioned above is also used in the kind of saline abortion that Tina supposedly underwent (though we should know at this point that this scenario is incredibly unlikely). First of all, the amniotic fluid the fetus floats in is already about 2% saline solution, and the fetus makes its own “contribution” by urinating into it (“The role of amniotic fluid”). However, it does not burn the fetus. The hypertonic saline solution is a 20% saline solution, injected into either the amniotic sac or the space between the amniotic sac and the uterus (not the fetus itself, as is often claimed). This is enough of an electrolytic disturbance to cause the fetus’ heart to fail, but it never burns the fetus or the delicate reproductive system of the pregnant person (“Abortion in the Twentieth Century”). The cervix is then dilated and the fetus extracted as in a normal birth. Again, I will repeat: At no point does the saline solution burn the fetus or the pregnant person. It doesn’t even have to. In summary, Gianna Jessen’s story is medically inaccurate, legally improbable, and scientifically impossible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which Jessen has failed to provide. 3. What Really Happened? To me, the medical inaccuracies are the strongest indicators that Jessen’s story is a willful deception. They rely on lies identical to those already repeated in pro-life publications, which Jessen was probably exposed to extensively as a child. (Her mother, Diana DePaul, was already involved in pro-life activism when she adopted Jessen.) Even if Jessen was brainwashed by DePaul, Jessen is 37 years old as of the time of this writing. I do not think she is as naive as a 12-year-old (or 14-year-old, depending on which story you prefer). In fact, I believe she is considerably intelligent and has the ability to critically examine what her mother has told her. But if she really does believe what she is saying, it’s the equivalent of a 37-year-old believing they were still delivered via stork. Jessen’s entire career as an “abortion survivor” and “disability rights advocate” is based on this story, so she has a clear interest in keeping it that way. Even if Jessen knew that her story was false, I would not expect her to recant it any time soon. However, I think there is a needle of truth in the haystack of lies. It is possible, for example, that she did have a premature birth. As for her claims that she has cerebral palsy, I am not qualified to comment on that issue, but it is a known complication of premature births (“Premature births”). Babies born at 28 to 31 weeks have a very high chance of survival of about 96%, though babies with very low birth weights like Jessen are still at high risk of medical complications (“What’s the outlook”). It is not unreasonable to believe that Jessen was born premature somewhere between 29 to 32 weeks, and that she developed cerebral palsy as a result of complications. However, whatever truth there may be to Jessen’s story is swamped by the sheer number of fabrications tacked on to it. I am not convinced that either Jessen or her mother/manager, Diana DePaul, are being completely honest about Jessen’s past. Readers beware: do not let the pathetic fallacy Jessen employs deter you from examining her claims. While Jessen would have you believe that being pro-life is a prerequisite for feeling complete and proper sympathy for her plight, emotions are never a substitute for hard evidence and critical thinking.

EDIT 1: AN ADDENDUM ADDRESSING SOME SPECIFIC CRITICISMS OF THIS POST, AS WELL AS MORE DAMNING EVIDENCE OF JESSEN’S DISHONESTY, CAN BE FOUND HERE. 

EDIT 2: TUMBLR USER KIWIANAROHA POINTS OUT MORE INCONSISTENCIES IN JESSEN’S PURPORTED BIRTH CERTIFICATE HERE. Works Cited “Abortion in the Twentieth Century.” Encyclopedia of Birth Control. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2001. 9-10. Web. 3 May 2014. <http://books.google.com/books?id=XuX-MGTZnJoC&dq>. Day, Elizabeth. “Gianna Jessen was aborted at 7½ months. She survived. Astonishingly, she has forgiven her mother for trying to kill her.” The Telegraph 4 Dec. 2005 [London] . Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1504652/Gianna-Jessen-was-aborted-at-7-months.-She-survived.-Astonishingly-she-has-forgiven-her-mother-for-trying-to-kill-her.html>. “Dead Sea.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 3 May 2014. Web. 3 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea>. Elliott, Jane. “‘I survived an abortion attempt.’” BBC News 6 Dec. 2005 [London] . Web. 2 May 2014. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4500022.stm>. Henig, Jess. “Factcheck.org: Abortion Ads Miss the Truth.” Newsweek 23 Sept. 2008. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.newsweek.com/factcheckorg-abortion-ads-miss-truth-89091>. “Instillation abortion.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instillation_abortion>. Jessen, Gianna. “Gianna Jessen.” The Abortion Survivors Network. Ed. Melissa Ohden. The Abortion Survivors Network, 22 Apr. 1996. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/public-survivors-their-stories/gianna-jessen/>. Lewin, Tamar. “In Debate on Abortion, 2 Girls Make It Real.” The New York Times 27 Oct. 1991. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/27/us/in-debate-on-abortion-2-girls-make-it-real.html>. Lokal_Profil. “Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 12 Mar. 2007. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg>. “Pregnancy: The Three Trimesters.” USCF Medical Center. The Regents of the University of California, 2014. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.ucsfhealth.org/conditions/pregnancy/trimesters.html>. “Preterm birth.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 29 Apr. 2014. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth>. Prismall, Barry. “Abortion survivor joins debate.” The Age 31 Aug. 2008 [Melbourne] . Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.theage.com.au/national/abortion-survivor-joins-debate-20080830-4654.html>. “Roe v. Wade.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade>. “The role of amniotic fluid.” Penn Medicine. A.D.A.M., Inc., 2014. Web. 3 May 2014. <http://www.pennmedicine.org/encyclopedia/em_DisplayAnimation.aspx?gcid=000130&ptid=17>. “What’s the outlook for premature babies born before 28, 31, 33, or 36 weeks?” Baby Center. BabyCenter, L.L.C., 2014. Web. 3 May 2014. <http://www.babycenter.com/0_whats-the-outlook-for-premature-babies-born-before-28-31-33_10300031.bc>. Womack, Sarah. “Churchmen back woman who survived being aborted.” The Telegraph 7 Dec. 2005. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1504875/Churchmen-back-woman-who-survived-being-aborted.html>.

[emo-aliens-blog]

-from “Unspeakable Things” by Laurie Penny

[sooge-deactivated20170512]

Outlawing abortion clinics would only make the statistics of unsafe self abortions increase. Without clinics, there would STILL be abortions happening everywhere. Even if you don’t agree with abortion, wouldn’t you rather the mothers have the option of doing it safely rather than doing something extremely dangerous?

[ablogaboutchoice]

You’d think that’s what they’d want, but they’re not “pro-life”, they’re just pro-fetus. I have plenty more where these came from if you’re not convinced of how awful the so called “pro-life” movement can be.

[thehairiestfeminist]

[standtrueprolife-blog]

“But abortion is the law of the land! We just have to accept it!”

We don’t buy that.

[ablogaboutchoice]

Hitler committed crimes that he would have been executed for had he not committed suicide. So...not legal.

[ourprolifegeneration-blog]

Does anyone else think that abortion, child abuse, and infant circumcision/piercings/other forms of permanent bodily modification all seem to stem from the idea that our children are our property and their bodies are ours to do with as we please? Because that’s honestly what it seems like. It’s the same way of thinking.

It’s really messed up.

[ablogaboutchoice]

I'm pro-choice for the same reason I'm against circumcision. Bodily autonomy. Just like no one should be able to force you to share your body without your consent, no one should be able to literally cut off a piece of your body without your consent.

[wputty]

[ablogaboutchoice]

Yes, the baby does have a choice. But hopefully they won’t have to make the choice to have an abortion for another few years. They’re a little young for that.

[shitantichoiceprotesterssay]

Sources: here and here

Abortion is murder because  the right to life is the most important right of all  and  fetuses have the right to life (even to the point of turmping a pregnant person’s health) and abortion  but murdering civilians in other countries is no biggie. I guess  you only have  the right to life as long as you are a cute little fetus….

[thecynicalhippie-blog]

Seriously, look at how the pro life movement treats pregnant people. When they protest, it isn’t just the clinics or doctors they stay limited to.

No, they target the very patients themselves.

They push for law that have NOTHING to do with abortion, like forcing pregnant people to pay for funerals/cremation costs, even they had a miscarriage.

The states have ALREADY sent a woman to prison over a MISCARRIAGE.

PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO MISCARRY IS *ALREADY* A THING, PEOPLE.

Pro life SEEKS to punish pregnant people, Trump is just very honest about it.

Is it really such a shocker for everyone?

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Canada's Smallest Province Finally Moves to Legalize Abortion

Decades after abortion became fully legal in Canada, Price Edward Island has finally bowed to pressure and agreed to offer the medical procedure.

In a historic move, Canada’s smallest province announced Thursday it will start providing surgical abortions within its borders, admitting that its current policies are likely unconstitutional.

The government of Prince Edward Island has directed its health agency to begin planning for a new women’s reproductive health center on the island, where a number of reproductive services will be offered, including medical and surgical abortions.

Prince Edward Island has been the lone hold out in Canada, where abortion is legal, opting to send women outside of the province to get an abortion.

Earlier this year, an abortion advocacy group announced that it was launching a constitutional challenge against the island, arguing that its policy amounted to a “state imposed barrier to the right and ability of individual women to exercise control over matters fundamental to their physical, emotional, and psychological integrity.”

Premier Wade MacLachlan announced on Thursday that it would not be opposing the constitutional challenge.

“Based on legal advice that current policies regarding access to in-province abortion services would likely be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, government determined that the most responsible approach is to revise the policy rather than embark on a long and costly court case,” said MacLauchlan in a news release. “We recognize that Islanders, including Members of the Legislative Assembly, have strong personal beliefs on this issue; we also recognize our obligation to provide timely and professional health care, without discrimination.”

The government has asked the agency to develop a business case for the new center, which will be located in a hospital. The plan is supposed to be in place by the end of 2016.

Abortion access is a divisive issue in Canada’s Atlantic provinces, and Paula Biggar, the minister responsible for the status of women, acknowledged that residents have expressed views on both sides of debate.

“We have listened with respect to many voices and personal convictions on this topic,” said Biggar in a statement. “Public policy must be reassessed and revised to ensure it stands the test of time. The decision we’re announcing today means that we will offer timely access to frontline services that align with women’s equality rights.”

This is a developing news story. Please check back for further updates.

[joinourfight]

Pro life all the way

Yes the shootings were terrible. However consider how many lives were saved at the abortion clinic. Such drastic measures. This still doesn’t excuse the shootings.

[ablogaboutchoice]

Um, literally zero lives were saved because people didn’t stop having abortions as a result. Also, it doesn’t matter how many times you say the shootings were “horrible” and “inexcusable”. Your post was an attempt at justifying them, and that’s disgusting.

[kiwianaroha]

If you personally don’t want to know about any illnesses or birth defects before the birth, that’s your prerogative, but to say that pregnant people should be deliberately kept in the dark because you don’t want them to choose to have an abortion is both reckless and incredibly cruel

[prochoicecanadian]

Exactly. I believe all pregnant people should have full access to information regarding their pregnancies, so they can make the right (and fully informed) choice for themselves.

[desciple1776-deactivated2016040]

Had to walk through a crowd of angry feminists protesting an abortion bill today. All I wanted to do was either walk up and debate their position, or get about 75 feet away and yell “Get back in the kitchen”

[afunnyfeminist]

“But I just put my head down and walked past them without saying anything or making eye contact, because I was a-scared. Then I went home and made this post to re-big myself.”

It looked like you hit “post” before being done, so I finished it for ya.

[proudly-pro-choice]

[thesethingstheyareahappening-de]

Call me crazy, but I think that if you care about the health of women like Planned Parenthood says it does, they would have no problem bringing their clinics (where they do abortions) up to outpatient procedure clinic standards, and to make sure the doctors you hire have admitting privileges.

[prochoicecanadian]

The big issue with requiring these things is that they are not actually necessary to providing abortions to patients, and it will close clinics that do not have the resources to make these unnecessary changes. Like, the width of a hallway is not going to make an abortion any safer, and abortion is already a very safe medical procedure. It would be equivalent to making sure all dentist’s offices had  8 foot hallways; many dentist offices would be closing because they don’t have the money for a new building, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t safe to begin with. To have admitting privileges, I believe you need to be located within a certain distance to a hospital, which will not help people who live in rural areas get basic medical care. To top it off, hospitals may refuse to give admitting privileges to these doctors, but it doesn’t mean that a patient who needed to go to the emergency room would be turned away.

These restrictions do nothing but place an undue burden on people trying to access medical care. It may be done under the guise of women’s safety, but it’s really a targeted approach at shutting down abortion providers.

[funkycodex]

Abortion ban linked to dangerous miscarriages at Catholic hospital

The woman inside the ambulance was miscarrying. That was clear from the foul-smelling fluid leaving her body. As the vehicle wailed toward the hospital, a doctor waiting for her arrival phoned a specialist, who was unequivocal: the baby would die. The woman might follow. Induce labor immediately.

But staff at the Mercy Health Partners hospital in Muskegon, Michigan would not induce labor for another 10 hours. Instead, they followed a set of directives written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that forbid terminating a pregnancy unless the mother is in grave condition. Doctors decided they would delay until the woman showed signs of sepsis – a life-threatening response to an advanced infection – or the fetal heart stopped on its own.

In the end, it was sepsis. When the woman delivered, at 1.41am, doctors had been watching her temperature climb for more than eight hours. Her infant lived for 65 minutes.

This story is just one example of how a single Catholic hospital risked the health of five different women in a span of 17 months, according to a new report leaked to the Guardian.

As a result several of the women suffered infection or emotional trauma, or had to undergo unnecessary surgery. None of the women were pregnant beyond 24 weeks, when an infant can survive outside the womb.

One of the women described in the complaint was given Tylenol for a potentially deadly infection and sent home – twice – where she miscarried by herself on the toilet. Another woman, the report says, spent three days in the hospital and eventually required additional surgery.

READ MORE

The article includes many other stories about women whose health was harmed because of catholic healthcare institutions. These women have had health difficulties during pregnancy, they were not going to get rid of their babies, they had to do it to survive. There are more than 380 hospitals in the USA that obey Bishops’ rules for healthcare. Such rules block the necessary treatment sometimes. It’s called negligence, it’s a crime. If catholic principles are against the principles of health care, catholic principles may go to hell.  

[ablogaboutchoice]

How pro-life of them

[reproductivejusticeandliberty]

Pregnancy, like sex, requires ongoing consent. You can cancel that consent any time you want.

[atx-nerd-mom]

Abortion ban linked to dangerous miscarriages at Catholic hospital, report claims

Exclusive: Five women suffered prolonged miscarriages, severe infections and emotional trauma at Mercy Health Partners when staff neglected patients’ health to uphold religious directives against inducing delivery, report reveals

The report, by a former Muskegon County health official, Faith Groesbeck, accuses Mercy Health Partners of forcing five women between August 2009 and December 2010 to undergo dangerous miscarriages by giving them no other option.

All five women, the report says, had symptoms indicating that it would be safest for them to deliver immediately. But instead of informing the women of their options, the report says, or offering to transfer them to a different hospital, doctors – apparently out of deference to the Mercy Health Partners’ strict ban on abortion – unilaterally decided to subject the women to prolonged miscarriages.

As a result, the report claims, several of the women suffered infection or emotional trauma, or had to undergo unnecessary surgery. None of the women were pregnant beyond 24 weeks, when an infant can survive outside the womb.