525
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

State lawmakers ‘don’t see the mourning and the grieving that these moms’ experience after getting a heartbreaking diagnosis, Breanna Cecil tells Kelly Rissman

A Tennessee woman who was denied an abortion despite a fatal abnormality says the state’s anti-abortion laws resulted in her losing an ovary, a fallopian tube and her hopes for a large family.

“The state of Tennessee took my fertility from me,” Breanna Cecil, 34, told The Independent. She added that state lawmakers “took away my opportunity to have a family like my own biological family because of these horrible laws that they put in place.”

The mother-of-one said she has not felt the same since her doctor told her in January 2023 that her fetus was diagnosed with acrania, a fatal condition where the fetus has no skull bones.

Then, 12 weeks pregnant, Ms Cecil was getting her first ultrasound. She attended the appointment alone, so when the doctor told her the fetus was not viable outside the womb, she was left with only asking the doctor what she should do. 

However, she was left with few options. The state’s near-total abortion ban prevents anyone from getting an abortion if there is still a heartbeat - which her fetus still had. 

The law makes no exceptions for fatal conditions and also criminalizes physicians who perform the procedure outside of the allowed exceptions.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 133 points 6 months ago

"State lawmakers ‘don’t see the mourning and the grieving that these moms’ experience"

If they did, they wouldn't care. "It's God's will."

Christofascists don't care about women. They care about power first & their stupid book full of Bronze Age fairy tales is a distant second, except for the parts they don't like, of course.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 59 points 6 months ago

Not so fun fact: They aren't even paying attention to their book. The Bible mentions abortion exactly once in its pages. Numbers 5: 11-21 tells you how to perform a questionable and dangerous abortion. Their stupid book is technically pro choice on this issue.

[-] whereisk@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Not so much "pro-choice" as much as forced abortion russian-roulette. After all in most of the bible most women have little to no agency.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

True, but as the two positions there are (laughably) "pro-life," or "pro-choice," I was lumping it in with the latter.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 months ago

No, if their wife had this issue they'd suddenly care... and consequently be muscled out of the GOP as a non-believer.

One important thing to remember is that the average GOPer is essentially unable to empathize outside of themselves: https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/

But, of course, when it actually reaches them they're extremely quick to change their tune.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

In some cases you're right. In many others they quietly send them elsewhere and maintain their stance and standing in the GOP community.

For many of them the issue isn't abortion itself. It's doing it openly. It's the same way many of them feel about LGBTQ folks. They feel that those people should be properly ashamed and only do it quietly behind closed doors.

Many of them would also still like to send unmarried pregnant women off to live with a relative for a bit only to come home in 9 months with a "younger sibling".

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

No true Republican

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Both abolitionists and slavers cited the bible to justify their views. IMO they don't care about the book, its just a tool to enforce their feelings on others. Its a tool many are well versed in but I think its 100% about power and feelings

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Ohh, they see it. And it gives them a massive throbbing hard-on.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 78 points 6 months ago

The only fair outcome is for all of the lawmakers who passed the law to give up one testicle or ovary.

[-] Xtallll 67 points 6 months ago

Or their skull bones, because according to the law they passed, those aren't required for life.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Why not both?

[-] fukurthumz420@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

but seriously, let's make this happen

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

That’s a far less traumatic experience than what this woman endured.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

Strictly CBT congress.

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 5 points 6 months ago

You can bet if this happened to the wife or mistress of one of these fucks, they'd have an abortion right away with no problem.

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 59 points 6 months ago

I know this is preaching to the choir here, but this is so gross across the board.

My wife and I struggled to have our kid. That process is brutal. A lot of women miscarry. A lot of women have unviable pregnancies--like this. An obvious-to-everyone-but-conservatives outcome to banning abortions is that women will lose their ability to have children(like this) or worse they'll die.

My wife has a very high likelihood of miscarriage. Miscarriages can cause all sorts of issues and sometimes doctors need to go in and clear stuff out (this is considered an abortion). If that doesn't happen, my wife could 1. Die 2. Lose her ovaries/uterus/fallopian tube 3. Never have a chance at more kids again.

Abortions mean people have have happy healthy families. Abortions mean women can bring children into this world.

We were lucky we didn't have to go down that path, but it's a serious risk if we try to have another kid.

People act like women go get abortions for shits and giggles. Fuck anyone voting against women.

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago
[-] Vorticity@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

I'm so tired of that word replacing "strongly criticizes", "rebukes", "condemns", "denounces", or "repremands". Why do articles have to use such a stupid, lazy word? Does it actually draw more clicks?

[-] notabot@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

Its shorter, so it fits better in headlines that need to be short.

[-] Vorticity@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

It's not like it needs to go into a news paper. It's a website headline. "condemns" is only three letters longer than "slams" and doesn't sound lick clickbait.

[-] notabot@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

That one is a newspaper headline though, its from The Independent.

[-] Vorticity@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The last printed edition was published on Saturday 26 March 2016, leaving only the online edition.

source

[-] notabot@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

A fair point, I hadn't realized they'd stopped printing physical copies. They still seem to think of themselves as a newspaper though, and I suppose old conventions die hard.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

BRUTAL politician TAKEDOWN RKOs opponent out of NOWHERE

[-] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Oh my gosh! Oh no! Is anyone alive, JR?!

[-] General_Shenanigans@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

They wanted so badly to use the word that it fucked up the whole headline

[-] Djtecha@lemm.ee 32 points 6 months ago

Can we post who they voted for in the last election for stories like this? I want to know if I should feel sad and mad or just mad.

[-] ettyblatant@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Ms. Cecil said that she wanted to make clear to the legislators that "abortion is not black and white," explaining that every abortion is different. >

Maybe I'm reading into it, but this paragraph stood out to me.

[-] Djtecha@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

Yea seems like the only moral abortion is my abortion bullshit.

[-] ettyblatant@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

It's just a weird detail for the author to include. It's a "while I've still got you here..." sentence. It's entirely unnecessary except to make absolutely sure that everyone knows that she is not speaking in favor of those abortions.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

Was that headline written by AI? It’s like someone just had to work the word “slams” in there and it reads like a fetus with no brain stem did the slamming.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

It's just God's will. /s but sadly, not really.

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Jesus taught torture, apparently!

Like Father, like Son!

[-] KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

That headline is borderline unintelligible.

[-] gimpchrist@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago

At what point? Because it's perfect English and it's perfect grammar

[-] makatwork@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Yes, of course they would deny the abortion after the fetus SLAMMED the state's laws.

[-] forrgott@lemm.ee 12 points 6 months ago

Technically, that's not a valid way to read the headline. It's either the mother, or the fetus' brain...

[-] gimpchrist@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

As much as I absolutely adore your interpretation there is a comma after that s in fetus rofl

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's valid English and grammar, but it's a potentially reasonable position that anything which requires a specific domain knowledge to interpret may be valid but isn't perfect. You kind of have to know how journalists shorten sentences to make headlines in order to read it correctly; most native English-speaking adults do have that domain knowledge, but clearly not everyone since OP didn't have it.

That said, I don't know why this specific headline tripped OP up. It doesn't seem particularly ambiguous or difficult to me.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

"(A) Tennessee woman (who was) denied (an) abortion after (finding out her) fetus’ ‘brain (was) not attached’ slams (Tennessee's abortion) ban"

Hope that helps.

[-] fukurthumz420@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

the people responsible for putting someone through that shit should be put to death

[-] neuropean@kbin.social 8 points 6 months ago

Of course they wouldn’t allow an abortion, that was a future republican.

[-] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Doctors need to start standing up.

[-] FollyDolly@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

They are, standing up and leaving those states in droves.

[-] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This may be a bad take but since hospitals seem to make bank I think it would be in the country's best interest if they just "continued to do their work unhindered" and get the hospital in trouble later. Once the government starts asking questions, give them the usual run-around everyone else gets.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A Tennessee woman who was denied an abortion despite a fatal abnormality says the state’s anti-abortion laws resulted in her losing an ovary, a fallopian tube and her hopes for a large family.

Not only could she not “mentally handle” the well-intentioned questions about the baby’s due date and sex, she said she could not be a “good mom to [her] little boy” if she was forced to go through with her pregnancy, and deliver the stillborn.

Her fever persisted and two days later, she returned to the hospital, where doctors discovered she had a nine-centimeter-sized abscess in her abdomen that encompassed some of her reproductive organs.

The young mother added pregnant people who need an abortion shouldn’t feel like they need to beg for permission from lawmakers who do not have medical backgrounds.

Ms Cecil contemplated joining a group of women, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, who were denied abortions and are now fighting the state’s prohibition, asking for “clarity” on the ban’s medical exceptions.

The three-judge panel has yet to rule on the temporary injunction in a state that is one of 14 across the nation that made abortion illegal since the end of Roe v Wade in June 2022.


The original article contains 1,080 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
525 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2297 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS