September 20, 2008
Washington Post story on South Dakota abortion Initiated Measure 11
Peter Slevin of the Washington Post interviewed me this week in my office here in Sioux Falls for this article — S. Dakota Readies Again for Abortion Fight. It's now online and will be on page A3 of the Washington Post tomorrow (Sunday 9/21/08). Here's the link.
The sections that referred to me and the Lampstand Project were fair and good - and I appreciate it Peter, thank you.
It is unfortunate the Sioux Falls lady with the twin to twin transfusion story was featured though. Folks, here's the straight scoop regarding this heart-wrenching situation under Initiated Measure 11…
Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome is a very rare complication that threatens the life of the babies in utero. However, today there are modern medical procedures that are used to save the children. If, however, one of the children dies in utero as a result of those medical interventions, the loss of the baby does not violate the law under Initiated Measure 11. The claim that the mother, under the new law, could not have had a procedure to save the life of one or both of those children is totally false.There is no reason for a doctor to deliberately kill one of the twins in an effort to save one of them, and physicians do not do so as part of accepted standards of medical practice. Under Section 2 of the law, only if the procedure is designed to deliberately and intentionally kill the baby, is it prohibited – unless it is permitted by one of the exceptions. An unintended death is not a violation of the law, and the law permits the procedure even if there is a risk that one or both babies could die from the procedure.
Section 2 specifically requires that the doctor’s act is “with the intent of causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being.” Medical treatment intended to save the lives of the babies is not prohibited. Further, Section 13, paragraph 1 of the law states:
“Medical treatment … that results in the unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this Act.”
In the second to last paragraph of the Washington Post story the above is mentioned but it's lost in the intended emotion provoking story of this lady with twins.
Comments on Washington Post story on South Dakota abortion Initiated Measure 11 »
rradical @ 1:41 am
There is no reason for a doctor to deliberately kill one of the twins in an effort to save one of them, and physicians do not do so as part of accepted standards of medical practice.
Thank you Dr. Hickey, world-renowned obsetrician for your opinion.
Hands off my wife and daughters, though.
Steve @ 9:40 am
The quote is from doctors and lawyers. Not me. I'd say to you… hands off the unborn.
Amy @ 2:50 pm
Rradiculous!
"Hands off my wife and daughters, though"
Yeah, buddy. It's guys like you (and BIll Thompson) that make me wonder what on earth has happened to men. What you are saying is that you would like to retain the right to KILL YOUR OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN!
Nobody is even pretending the argument is about a "blob of tissue" anymore. Science and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has put that nonsense to rest. Remember, we are talking about a separate, unique, living, human being - not my opinion alone, it is a FACT. Now you are being forced to admit the position that you really held all along. You want to be able to do away with your offspring and offsprings' offspring if they are an inconvenience to you. What a complete horror.
Convince me otherwise.
Doc @ 1:15 pm
rradical now the information is coming directly from a doctor. I am a physician in the state of South Dakota and I have delivered hundreds of SD's children.
The first thing that needs to be pointed out in this story is that Mrs. Campbell did have options and would still have options under IM11. So my assumption is, that you do not know what you are talking about.
You must first understand what twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is. TTTS can happen when identical twins share a common placenta. Normally, each twin will have its own area of the placenta it will use. In TTTS either the placenta is unequally shared or you can have nearly direct communication of blood vessels from the umbilical cords.
At first this does not seem to be a big deal, but what can happen is that one of the twins gets more blood flow than the other. This makes the ones heart work harder as it tries to pump more blood to its sibling. This can cause heart failure. Then the other twin gets less fluid and nutrition. This can lead to the death of both children if not treated.
Mrs. Campbell did not have to choose between one or both children. Current technology allows for the laser ablation of vessels within the placenta. This basically allows for the surgeon to make 2 separate placentas. Thus eliminating the difficulties with TTTS. This makes me wonder if her physicians gave her all of her options.
This would be 100% allowed under IM11. The only option it would eliminate is the direct attempt to take the life of one of the children. The campaign for unhealthy families is constantly trying to confuse the issues with falsehoods. They are using Mrs. Campbell as a pawn in their deception.
So if I were you, I would not want these physicians to lay their hands on my wife or daughters. Apparently, Mrs. Campbell was not given all of her options.