Heart breaking.

I have been arguing over on an anti-abortion site that has misused a quote of someone staunchly pro-choice.
The blogger used a quote out of context; it is clearly explained in the blog post here - about how she was misquoted to be used against her own beliefs.
First I was just really ANGRY.
The “pro-lifers” I have had to deal with in the past already have a plethora of fraudulent techniques such as doctored photographs or mislabelled scans of foetuses much later term than what they claim them to be. Why do they need the words of someone smart enough to come back and argue the point with them? Why waste time and heartache like that?
I did some looking into the woman who wrote the blog’s background.

And my heart broke.
This woman's story is why abortions SHOULD be legal to anyone who needs one.

If someone young is raised in a household ethically or religiously against contraception, and they have unprotected sex, they will very likely get pregnant.
Is it the woman’s fault that she was raised without education of how to take care of herself?
When she DOES get pregnant, and either doesn’t know about the morning after pill, or cannot take it due to religious beliefs (or in this case, unavailable in the era conception occurred) what then?
And then, after four months of denial (her words not mine) she does come out to her family her father says she SHOULD have an abortion... what then?
I cannot imagine this situation.
My heart broke for her.
She was doing the right thing, living life by morals, that were then turned upside down to suit the ONE person in this scenario who would never have to live with it himself – her father.

In the USA on July 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment banning Medicaid funding for abortion unless a woman's life was in danger.
I can only assume that, and the fact it was an illegal act having an abortion “after viability” as decreed by the New York state at the time is the reason that she was subjected to a traumatic saline induction abortion (contraindicated after 16 weeks), instead of the less traumatic surgical abortion under anaesthetic.
Non legitimate facilities run illegally would use options that would enable deniability and ability to move the woman if someone came to check.
As someone who hadn’t made the decision themselves and were well down the path of pregnancy, this would have most likely been traumatic. (and it was according to her story)
I do not know who the “doctors” were who put her through that, but I do know that with legalisation and less stigma women receive the support, counselling, full decision making process and explanation of what will happen.

None of this was afforded to her.
No support, no decision making process
No care while in the ‘hospital’.
No one held her hand and talked her through what was happening.
No support after, or links to groups that she may have found helpful.
Nothing.

The fact that her father essentially forced her to undergo a procedure should not happen in a legal operation.
Could my father take me into the public hospital and have a mole removed for me?
No, the doctor sits down and talks to the PATIENT and only the patient to discuss the procedure. It is called informed consent and is legally required before any operation.
This process clearly did not take place.

With contraception the pregnancy may be prevented.
If not, the morning after pill can also protect against pregnancy
If abortion is de-stigmatised, legalised, and allowed by the church, an early term abortion of a zygote is far less traumatic than a late term illegal abortion.
If not, an illegal late term abortion of a foetus causing all sorts of side effects is still available.

The end result of all of these outcomes is the same.
A woman who has not completed a pregnancy.
The difference is in the trauma that woman had to endure, and her recovery and mental health afterwards.

THIS is why contraception and abortion should remain legal and the judgement and religious docterine against it needs to STOP.


Note from Scuba Nurse.

Me using her story without her permission is rude.
Me using her story to speak against her catholic faith is horrible.
Me using her words to support a point of view she opposes is cruel.

As soon as she apologises about HER blog post about Lauren’s story, I will do the same.
...At least I didn’t use her words out of context.