Woman declared legally dead is being kept alive due to state’s abortion laws

Not the 'Left' some people.

Plenty of people in the Labour Party eg do not/ have never thought men could be women etc (eg Professor Lord Winston). They, the Left, have campaigned for women's rights - equal pay eg in Teaching, maternity leave, the famous trial re orchestral recruitment ( listening to a person hidden so without knowing their sex, increased the number of women playing in orchestras), access to equal training opportunities for women ( eg abolition of the women's quota in Medicine), blind applications forms ( stopping discrimination due to names, age, sex) abolition of access to most colleges ( Oxbridge).etc etc.

Incidentally the Communist Party is and has always been quite sure that men can't become women ( that this argument is a distraction from the real problem the exploitation of the working class by an often corrupt Capitalist Class / Aristocracy ). They are left surely.

As for the US Democrats, in the UK and in most European Countries would they be considered 'left'? No of course not.

Thinking abortion is sad doesn't make you 'anti abortion.' Pro choice doesn't mean thinking abortion is a good time. It just supports women's access to necessary healthcare.

Out of curiosity, why is this considered so horrific?

It is utterly horrifying and really shows us how many view women - as vessels for reproduction. They can’t even give us dignity in death. Her poor family.

Pro-life types are pretty much Irredeemable under normal circumstances but fuck me, this is just horrific.

You do know that’s nonsense, right? The way Trump’s bulldozing his way over the US Constitution nothing is beyond being tampered with.

There's a huge likelihood of the child being seriously disabled (if he or she survives.) Personally, I have a horror of being kept in a vegetative state, and if I was pregnant I'd rather we went together then be kept alive but die as soon as my child was born, who may follow soon after anyway.

ETA: I didn't even think about that when I was pregnant with DS. I didn't need to think about it, nothing happened, but I should have made an advance directive.

The left could have codified them so they couldn't be tampered with. But they chose not to.

Unfortunately this means you have to be in favour of women dying in agony from ectopic pregnancies. Or dying from loss of blood when they start to abort spontaneously and their bodies just keep bleeding until they are exsanguinated, in cases in which a D&C would save their lives. 100% anti abortion really is not a stance I would feel comfortable holding.

"Your opinion and the popularity of it in certain countries is why this is happening. You're allowed your opinion, we're all allowed to point out the consequences of it."

The opinion of a random Mumsnet poster or indeed anyone in the UK or outside this particular state are completely irrelevant.

Last I looked America is a democracy and the laws of each state (on abortion or anything else ) are decided by officials they elect.

I agree if I was in the second trimester. In the first I'm more on the fence. Saying that, I wouldn't be suffering, and where I can I'd prefer to choose life.

It would be good if we could record our preferences for things like this during the booking in appointment.

I question some of the family's statements because it is illegal under state and federal law to require the family of a deceased adult person to pay that person's final medical bills. The dead person's estate pays and if that money is exhausted the remaining bills are either written off or reimburse to the hospital by the federal government. I know this for a fact because after my brother died broke and intestate, the hospital tried to get my parents to pay his final bills. They refused, citing the law and the hospital had to admit that they were wrong to attempt collection.

I can't speak directly to this case, but if the family is saying they are being forced to pay the woman's bills, they are either misinformed, lying, or being taken advantage of.

I think that's a really important point. In the UK we might keep a woman alive under similar circumstances (almost certainly only if later on the pregnancy), if the family were supportive, but if the baby was so damaged by it all that it wouldn't survive or would be in a terrible condition, then that would be a big factor for switching off the machines.

In this state, abortion is so restricted, even in the case of fatal abnormalities that the health of the baby is irrelevant to them. In the UK we'd do detailed checks to try and determine the prognosis for the baby, because there's a decision to be made, but in this case they don't need to as it's irrelevant.

I may be of the minority here I'm assuming, but if that was me and my pregnancy, or my sister and her pregnancy (especially having a toddler without a sibling who will already be losing their mum) then I would want them to try and make the pregnancy successful.
It's something that should be discussed in early pregnancy notes really so there is knowledge as to what the mum would want rather than doctors making the decision.

Similar case has already happened in the USA. The woman's body was breaking down and poisoning the baby, who wasn't going to survive. Her husband was finally allowed to get the life support machines switched off after going through court. It's just horrendous.

But things like this are a consequence of people who share your opinion, or hold it more strongly, being allowed to make decisions about laws and health.

Things like this should make you question the opinion you hold.

This is horrific

And her poor little boy, being taken to see mummy in the hospital, how is that supposed to help him to understand and come to terms with what has happened in his little life.

It is barbaric, and has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, or morality, or concern for family life, but everything to do with people assuming control over other peoples lives just because they can.

I don't think the law necessarily takes any account of the viability of the foetus: the absolute certainty that a baby will be born so terminally damaged that it will only survive a few hours at best is not a reason to abort it (and maybe try again, if it was a wanted baby that went tragically wrong) in some states. Isn't Georgia the state where some doctors wouldn't "abort" an ectopic pregnancy because the foetus might be "alive" and they might get prosecuted for murder? Or was that some other part of the USA that has retreated to the dark ages?

Ok, so you are 100% anti abortion but with certain cases you wriggle out by saying they are not considered abortion. What about the other case? The raped 13 year old who would rather not have her rapist father's child? You believe she should be forced to, and you have the right to force her?

Could it maybe be a debt that they will still have / be chased for etc ?

The whole situation is diabolical .

It's horrific. Cruel. I felt sick reading it.

The UK does not have liberal abortion laws - our laws are actually much more restrictive than in quite a few US states. What we have is a public consensus that women should be able to make decisions on when they are ready to be pregnant and give birth, and safe care based on those decisions. Doctors, thank goodness, still (just) have a collective folk memory of what it was like when abortion was illegal and they had to face the disastrous outcomes of illegal abortions.

That consensus is vulnerable. Sometime, somewhere, some politicians are going decide that there's some votes in this. That's why I respect Stella Creasey for trying to get the consensus into real laws.

I've made a point of not getting deep into abortion debates on Mumsnet as people come here for advice on their own lives and it's not my place to upset them. I stated my view which already tells you the answer to your questions.

But when a pregnant mother receives life saving care and a side effect of that treatment is the loss of her pregnancy, that isn't considered an abortion.

The laws are less "medical abortions are no longer acceptable" and more "any medical intervention that could knowingly lead to the death of a fetus is illegal". They were deliberately written to be both broad and blunt.