The Life of the Mother

In 2012, people were horrified when a woman named Savita Halappanavar died in an Irish hospital from infection as a consequence of miscarriage at 17 weeks.  There was no question that the fetus would not survive, but Irish law was adamant that until the fetus was actually dead, or the mother nearly dead, they could not terminate the pregnancy.  Mark you, there was no chance of survival for the fetus at this point. But still they waited, until the infection from the dying fetus became sepsis and killed the mother.

In court, this was ruled "medical misadventure".  One specialist said that if they had terminated the pregnancy a day or two earlier, it would have saved the mother's life.  This disdain for a woman's life sparked calls for reform of Irish abortion laws.

Turns out that Roman Catholic hospitals in this country  do the same thng.  This report from Michigan details 5 women in similar condition to Savita.  It's just lucky none of them died. My emphasis:

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. 

The report has not previously been made public. And it offers a disturbing look at how religious restrictions may interfere with emergency care. Catholic control of US hospitals has ballooned in the last 15 years, and with it, patient advocates warn, the risk that the US Bishops’ bans on abortion, contraception and sterilization will prevent thousands of women from receiving critical healthcare.

What these tragic cases all have in common is a Roman Catholic mandated disdain for the lives of women over a dead or dying infant--and in all cases, this a wanted child.  It ultimately treats women as a container and if she dies along the way (along with her fetus, we might add, because the baby's death is inevitable in these cases), oh so sad too bad.  Better that, than a woman survives a tragic loss and perhaps has another child.  Better that, than she survives to take care of her other children.  And it's this disdain that is so frightening.

Now, people of good will can reasonably disagree about limits on abortion (vilifying one another is not helpful so behave yourselves in the comments).  The majority of Americans agrees that abortion should be legal, at least under some circumstances, even if they personally do not think it's moral. Generally, people are more comfortable with abortion in the first trimester,  as early as possible, or in case of rape or incest.  (Aside: The rape-incest exception is logically inconsistent if you are a pro-lifer, however:  a baby is a baby, right?  However, the majority is very clear that abortion in this case is okay). Most are comfortable with increasing restrictions later on.  And, Americans strongly believe that it should be legal if the woman's physical life is endangered. So then, I guess the question is, how endangered does endangered have to be?  And the answer is, ask Savita's husband.

I don't think women get abortions on a whim.  Some of the most heartbreaking abortion stories were collected by Andrew Sullivan about women whose most wanted child turned out to have life-ending defects, or who had severe medical challenges to the mother, that made abortion a necessary and very painful medical choice. These should be read.  I would never, ever want the government to interfere with a woman's right to that choice and her own bodily integrity.   (Aside:  Of course, if you want to reduce women choosing abortions for other than health reasons, then reduce unwanted pregnancy by providing decent sex education and contraceptive access, and provide educational and economic opportunities for women and their families.  Family leave and day care,  decent jobs and education for example.  Otherwise, as Sr Joan Chittister writes, you are pro-birth, not pro-life.)  

Meanwhile, there's another tragedy blooming in South and Central America, where Zika virus is linked to increased microcephaly:  children born with abnormally small heads. (BTW, it is not caused by a pesticide; so don't go there.)  This may have little effect on the child, or lead to profound developmental defects-- impossible to tell.  Countries like El Salvador have recommended that women not get pregnant till 2018, which is not realistic in a poor predominantly Roman Catholic country with poor contraceptive access, and criminalization of abortion.  You really think the men of El Salvador are going to forgo sex for 2 years? And impoverished women with poor healthcare access, just how will they raise a disabled child? And so terrified women who are already pregnant are seeking chemical abortions. 

You know, here's the challenge for the pro-birth side to prove that they're really pro life.  Don't want to see abortion?  Get boots on the ground in Central and South America to provide contraception. (Even the Pope agrees.)  And provide care for pregnant women and support for raising potentially severely disabled children.

Otherwise, both of these examples simply show religiously-justified disdain for the rights, health and lives of women.

On the Christian Right's opposition to healthcare

"Evangelical" does not mean the same thing in other parts of the world that it means in the US.  Here, Evanglicals are entwined deeply with the right wing of the Republican party.  This leads them to behave in ways that their fellow Evanglicals abroad simply cannot fathom.  Like oppose healthcare for the poor.  English Evangelical NT Wright has scolded the Americans for this, which has led to many electrons going back and forth.

And it's not just NT Wright.

Michael Bird writes on Patheos,

I want to challenge my American evangelicals friends to consider whether your views of healthcare are truly biblical, and to consider whether you have been blinded by a culture of hyper-individualism, economic rationalism, placing faith in market forces. Because to outsiders the anti-Obamacare thing looks like “civil religion,” a syncretistic concoction of Christian teaching, Republican partisanship, capitalistic-worship, and  social darwinianism with its mantra of the survival of the fittest. Let me add that much quoted phrases like “God helps those who help themselves” and “Don’t tread on me” are not found in Scripture. Do you know what is found in Scripture, “love justice” and “do kindness” (Mic 6:8), “remember the poor” (Gal 2:10), “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise” (Luke 3:11), and words I recently read in 2 Corinthians just yesterday, “At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little’” (2 Cor 8:14-15; Exod 16:18).

Watch out for the flu!

The flu season is upon us, quite early this year, and flu is officially now an epidemic.  The CDC warns it may have weeks to run yet although they hope it will begin to wane soon.  The good news is that the vaccine is about 60% effective against the circulating influenza viruses this year.  The bad news is that even with the vaccine, you may not have complete protection--although if you do get the flu, it should be attenuated compared to an unprotected person.  There's also a very nasty cold (not flu) going around.

People die of the flu, particularly at risk being the elderly and very young.  Indeed, last week over 7% of the deaths in the country were ascribed to influenza.  It's a very nasty respiratory disease (the so called "stomach flu" isn't flu at all).

What can you do?  First, it's not too late to get a vaccine--this will be around for a while even if the peak passes.  Second, if you are sick, stay home !  Don't spread i t around.  Keep warm, drink liquids, and seek medical help if needed.  Third, if you are out and about, wash your hands frequently, and maybe keep some hand sanitizer nearby.  Be careful about touching your face or eyes, if you have touched "public" things without washing.  When I'm on the train and there's a snuffly sneezy person nearby, I admit....I move seats.

Let's stay well out there!

WWJD? Picture from Prior Aelred

Health care reform and family values

The US pays more per capita than any other developed nation for health care. For that vast sum of money, we do not cover all our citizens. Our outcomes are worse (infant mortality, for example, is higher in the USA than in Cuba). And medical bills, even for insured people, can be catastrophic, resulting in bankruptcy. In fact, 62% of bankruptcies come from health care bills, most of which are people who have insurance. If you think it couldn't happen to you, you're wrong. Nearly all of us would be wiped out, even with what we think are solid insurance plans, by a significant and expensive illness.

Marriage has a significant benefit in insurance costs. Most employer plans will allow the employee to cover his/her spouse and children, for an extra fee. And this is part of being married. Unless you are gay, naturally. If my wife were covered on my employer's health plan, my employer would have no problem. But the IRS would look at the value of that coverage, and consider it taxable income. That would be a sizeable boost in my income and therefore taxes that a straight married couple wouldn't pay, leading to a significant financial disincentive.

Of course, that wouldn't stop creditors from bankrupting us for medical bills. Unlike the government, THEY have no problem seeing us as married. Which leads to stories like this one about a woman whose husband was diagnosed with dementia:

The disease is degenerative, and he will become steadily less able to care for himself. At some point, as his medical needs multiply, he will probably need to be institutionalized.

The hospital arranged a conference call with a social worker, who outlined how the dementia and its financial toll on the family would progress, and then added, out of the blue: "Maybe you should divorce."

"I was blown away," M. told me. But, she said, the hospital staff members explained that they had seen it all before, many times. If M.'s husband required long-term care, the costs would be catastrophic even for a middle-class family with savings.

Eventually, after the expenses whittled away their combined assets, her husband could go on Medicaid -- but by then their children's nest egg would be gone, along with her 401(k) plan. She would face a bleak retirement with neither her husband nor her savings.

Kristof reports that the laws are written to allow seizure of assets up to 5 years post-divorce.

So let's get this straight, so to speak: "family values" in this country not only deny gay families protection including access to insurance, but specifically require straight couples divorce to avoid bankruptcy and ruin of the family and impovershment of the children.

THESE are the "family values" of the Republicans: a big F*** you to families whether straight or gay. Divorce, or go bankrupt. THis is the "status quo" and the "sacredness of marriage" that Republicans support.

There is NO justification for any of this. NO justification to deny gay families legal rights, and NO justification to preserve the status quo of a system that destroys families in financial ruin.

The immorality of this system is truly breathtaking. These people have the audacity to claim morality and Judeo-Christian values. But who would Jesus bankrupt?