US Infants died at higher rates after abortion bans in the US, research shows

By Deidre McPhillips, CNN
4 minute read
Updated 1:27 PM EDT, Mon October 21, 2024

baebee.png
The infant mortality rate was higher than expected in the US in several months after the Dobbs decision and never dropped to rates that were lower than expected, a new study found.
Cavan Images RF/Getty Images


In the year and a half following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision that revoked the federal right to an abortion, hundreds more infants died than expected in the United States, new research shows. The vast majority of those infants had congenital anomalies, or birth defects.

Earlier research – spurred by a CNN investigative report - found that infant mortality spiked in Texas after a 6-week abortion ban took effect in 2021, and experts say the new data suggests that the impacts of the bans and restrictions enacted by some states post-Dobbs have been large enough to affect broader trends.

“This is evidence of a national ripple effect, regardless of state-level status,” said Dr. Parvati Singh, an assistant professor of epidemiology with The Ohio State University College of Public Health and lead author of the new study.

In the new paper, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, Singh and co-author Dr. Maria Gallo, a professor of epidemiology and associate dean of research with the Ohio State University College of Public Health, compared infant mortality rates for the 18 months following the Dobbs decision against historical trends.

They found that infant mortality was higher than usual in the US in several months after the Dobbs decision and never dropped to rates that were lower than expected.

In the months that infant mortality was higher than expected – October 2022, March 2023 and April 2023 – rates were about 7% higher than typical, leading to an average of 247 more infant deaths in each of those months.

About 80% of those additional infant deaths could be attributed to congenital anomalies, which were higher than expected in six of the 18 months following the Dobbs decision, according to the new research. Congenital anomalies can range from mild to severe cases, and some of the most common types can affect an infant’s heart or spine. In some cases, babies with a birth defect may only survive a few months.

“This is the tip of the iceberg,” Singh said. “Mortality is the ultimate outcome of any health condition. This is a very, very acute indicator. It could be representative of underlying morbidity and underlying hardship.”

Other research has found that births have increased in states with abortion bans, and experts say that some of that increase is linked to a disproportionate rise in the number of women who are carrying fetuses with lethal congenital anomalies to term.

“Whether the pregnancy was wanted or unwanted, we know that many of these are pregnancies that would have ended in abortion had people had access to those services,” said Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the University of California, San Francisco. She was not involved in the new study, but does research abortion trends in the US.

Experts say that abortion bans can also affect access to broader health care, which can lead to increased risk for both babies and mothers.

“The well-being of a pregnant person is inextricably linked to the well-being of the pregnancy,” Upadhyay said. Abortion bans may affect access to and willingness to seek prenatal care and broader support systems, she said, and the barriers compound.

“People who face the most structural barriers in terms of poverty, lower levels of education, food insecurity, and other life stressors can’t access abortion care, and these factors also increase their risks of poor pregnancy and birth outcomes,” she said.

Infant mortality includes deaths that occur before a baby has turned one, so it is difficult to parse out exactly what was happening during the months that did see rates that were higher than expected, Singh said. But the timing – four, nine and 10 months after the Dobbs decision – line up with about the time that congenital anomalies can be identified in the fetus and a full-length gestation term.

“These studies are providing a signal that people aren’t getting the care that they need, and because of that, there are spillover effects,” said Dr. Alison Gemmill, a demographer and perinatal epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University who led the research identifying the link between rising infant mortality and abortion restrictions in Texas. “It’s never going to be the case that everybody’s going to be able to overcome the barriers of these bans.”

 
It kind of does make sense in the case of fetal anomalies. They should be able to keep them and get hospice care if they want but I don't see the harm in aborting a baby who isn't going to live very long.
It's not the same as people who use abortion as birth control for getting rid of healthy babies. I think it's pretty dumb a lot of states with abortion restrictions do not have an exception for fetal anomalies.
That baby needs to be alive in pure agony for those few short days! That’s what Christ intended!
 
I think eugenics is good.
Same, eugenics is a real science. I would never trust the government in my current life, past lives and future lives combined with that power though, but for the parents its worth considering in cases.

Though it presents that conundrum:

Abort all fetuses, its just a clump of cells. Its just a leftist position
- Liberals

Abort only fetuses with mass genetic problems? What are you evil white supremacist Hitler. Diversity of life is sacred!
- Also Liberals.

It just doesn't make any sense.
 
The fucking nerve of these bloodthirsty, demonic cunts pretending to give a fuck about babies dying when they're the ones murdering them.

What I don't get is why the prolife movement seems to be against birth control and the morning after pill but regular prolifers aren't and why is it so hard to have an abortion ban with exceptions for fetal anomaly, incest, rape and health of the mother? Why is one of those always left out, usually exceptions for fetal anomalies? Is it the Down Syndrome activists that think abortion is ableist?
Pro-lifers in general aren't against birth control. I'm against it because it amplifies/triggers personality disorders and makes women favor weak, effeminate men, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

Some more moderate pro-life types would probably be fine with that type of abortion ban. The problem is that the pro-aborts would never accept it. They argue for those exceptions to appeal to emotion, but in practice, they would never accept a world where they can't have a human life mutilated and sucked out of their wombs at any time, for any reason, up until birth.
 
Why go through a whole pregnancy for a baby you're just going to have to bury? Some people just can't handle the trauma.
The thing is, by the time the fetus is developed enough to have any hope of detecting these anomalies, it's usually too large to simply dissolve away. You're giving birth to something, be it dead or alive. And the trauma of giving birth to something dead cannot be truly described. Imagine what it's like to push a human corpse out of yourself. At least if they're born alive you don't have to deal with that.

Fetal anomalies are a shitty, shitty situation no matter what, and abortion isn't some magic spell that makes it all better no matter how much the medical industry insists otherwise. The options are basically "stab it to death, then give birth to it" or "give birth to it, then allow it to starve to death". Neither is great.
 
I would in the first place like to see how they substantiate the causal link between abortion access and infant mortality. The abstract of the paper seems to suggest they are just deducing based on statistical data, as though no major world events could prove a confounding factor around the year of Our Lord 2021.
 
As for the fetal anomalies, that's extremely broad. There are many anomalies that can be fixed and treated with proper medical intervention. I once read an article about a couple in Australia that a couple aborted their son because he potentially had a clubbed foot (foot is twisted abnormally; can be fixed with early intervention because baby bones are very pliable). Kid ended up not having a clubbed foot but his parents killed him because there was a possibility that the kid had an anomaly.
Great point, I should have specified I only meant fetal anomalies incompatible with life and not just a cosmetic issue like a club foot. That's an incredibly OTT reaction to a kid with a clubbed foot, wow.
Part of it is also because of the down syndrome activists (DS can be so broad and while some have a high quality of life, not all of them do. So it's a mixed bag with this topic).
Agreed, there are some that seem happy and function as well as they can and some who are nonverbal, painting the walls with poop and seem obviously disturbed or unhappy.
The most worrying thing to me is the early onset dementia they tend to suffer from, though I don't know if early onset dementia is enough to qualify for eugenics, unless we're targeting it with gene therapies.
Same, eugenics is a real science. I would never trust the government in my current life, past lives and future lives combined with that power though, but for the parents its worth considering in cases.
Good point. I can definitely see the government using it for evil, such as early Latin American governments that encouraged miscegenation between Europeans and natives.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Jimjamflimflam
I consider myself a Christian but certain exceptions just seem reasonable, like a necessary sin. There seems to be no logical benefit to making a family have an anencephaly baby if they don't want to.
Guess what mate, they're going to have that baby, once it has been conceived, one way or another.

Nature does not actually have a "ctrl z" option. He exists. You cannot literally "unalive" someone, only murder. You can kill him on the inside and throw him in a red bag so no one has to look at him too long. Or you can give him the comfort of his mother's arms, warm blankets, milk or sugar water (which relieves pain), strong pain medication, religious rites of birth and death, and a decent human burial.

He is going to die. He is going to suffer. It's not suffering-free for him to die being dismembered in the womb. There is no shortcut for him, in this. It's about doing what is decent and giving him the humane departure that we generally grant to those we consider fellow human beings.
 
Great point, I should have specified I only meant fetal anomalies incompatible with life and not just a cosmetic issue like a club foot. That's an incredibly OTT reaction to a kid with a clubbed foot, wow.
I wish I archived the article, I read it around 2009/2010 because I was gathering sources for a debate i had for a Speech class back in high school (had to work with a partner, one being for a topic and one being against and go back and forth. This article helped ban the topic of abortion for this project because it made a bunch of students very uncomfortable when originally everyone didn't seem to have an issue with it being discussed). Parents wanted asspats, pity, and donations over their "pregnancy loss" (which still makes me MATI) and that's why the article was written.
Agreed, there are some that seem happy and function as well as they can and some who are nonverbal, painting the walls with poop and seem obviously disturbed or unhappy.
The most worrying thing to me is the early onset dementia they tend to suffer from, though I don't know if early onset dementia is enough to qualify for eugenics, unless we're targeting it with gene therapies.
My issue with eugenics is where does it end. Canada is a good example with their MAiD program; originally it was supposed to help ease suffering of those that were unnecessarily suffering and couldn't get better from whatever ailment they had but now they're trying to kill just about everyone under the sun in order to ease the strain of their health care system.
Guess what mate, they're going to have that baby, once it has been conceived, one way or another.

Nature does not actually have a "ctrl z" option. He exists. You cannot literally "unalive" someone, only murder. You can kill him on the inside and throw him in a red bag so no one has to look at him too long. Or you can give him the comfort of his mother's arms, warm blankets, milk or sugar water (which relieves pain), strong pain medication, religious rites of birth and death, and a decent human burial.

He is going to die. He is going to suffer. It's not suffering-free for him to die being dismembered in the womb. There is no shortcut for him, in this. It's about doing what is decent and giving him the humane departure that we generally grant to those we consider fellow human beings.
I know that sometimes you can elect to induce labor to a child that is incompatible with life and keep them comfortable and allow the mother to moarn however she wishes to (think you have to be at least 19 or 20 weeks or something like that.) Some people choose this and then donate any good organs the child has to other kids that have a better prognosis.

--
I do not pretend some moral arbitrator of what should and shouldn't be done. I don't like abortion and think that a majority of them are preformed because of a breakdown of society where people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. But at the same time, I do not think that a child that was raped should suffer further consequences from the incident (I do believe in a woodchipper for such incidents though).
 
I know that sometimes you can elect to induce labor to a child that is incompatible with life and keep them comfortable and allow the mother to moarn however she wishes to (think you have to be at least 19 or 20 weeks or something like that.) Some people choose this and then donate any good organs the child has to other kids that have a better prognosis.
Very early induction like that- whether of a living child, a moribund child, or an already deceased one- is very onerous on the mother. The cervix is not "ripe" and does not want to open, many hours hooked up to drugs that cause considerable discomfort are necessary. So they are reluctant to electively induce that early unless her health is otherwise at risk. However, yes, as an alternative to abortion perinatal hospice is a humane option which should be discussed and offered more openly as it has benefits for the entire family's long term recovery and mental health.

What is perinatal hospice?

Perinatal hospice and palliative care is an innovative and compassionate model of support for parents who choose to continue their pregnancies following a prenatal diagnosis indicating that their baby has a life-limiting condition and might die before or shortly after birth. As prenatal testing continues to advance, more families are finding themselves in this heartbreaking situation. Perinatal (perinatal means around the time of birth) hospice incorporates the philosophy and expertise of hospice and palliative care into the care of this new population of patients. This specialized support is provided from the time of diagnosis through the baby's birth and death. Perinatal palliative care helps parents embrace whatever life their baby might be able to have, before and after birth.

This support begins at the time of diagnosis, not just after the baby is born. It can be thought of as "hospice in the womb" (including birth planning, emotional support for the mother and the rest of the family, and preliminary medical decision-making before the baby is born) as well as more traditional hospice and palliative care at home after birth (if the baby lives longer than a few minutes or hours). It includes essential newborn care such as warmth, comfort, and nutrition. Palliative care can also include medical treatments intended to improve the baby's life. This approach supports families through the rest of the pregnancy, through decision-making before and after birth, and through their grief. Perinatal hospice also enables families to make meaningful plans for the baby's life, birth, and death, honoring the baby as well as the baby's family.

Perinatal hospice is not a place. It is a model of care, an extra layer of support that can easily be incorporated into standard pregnancy and birth care. Ideally, it is a comprehensive and multidisciplinary team approach that can include obstetricians, perinatologists, labor & delivery nurses, neonatologists, NICU staff, clergy, and social workers, as well as genetic counselors, midwives, traditional hospice and palliative care professionals, and others. The concept was first proposed in the medical literature in 1997 and has now grown to well over 350 programs worldwide. Many articles have been published in major journals such as the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. A study of perinatal medical professionals in France found that the vast majority — well over 90 percent — support offering perinatal palliative care as a regular option. And a 2019 committee opinion on perinatal palliative care from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, also endorsed by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and American Academy of Pediatrics, encourages health care providers and institutions to develop PPC programs.

A note about definitions: The terms hospice and palliative care are sometimes used interchangeably, but they have specific meanings. Hospice refers to palliative care at the end of life; palliative care includes hospice care but is much broader. Palliative care is for people of all ages and at any stage of serious illness and can include medical treatments that might benefit the patient. Palliative care “intends neither to hasten nor postpone death, affirms life, and recognizes dying
as a natural process.” (International Association for Hospice & Palliative Care) Above all, it means that “every effort can be made to ensure comfort at all times.” (World Health Organization) As the benefits of hospice and palliative care became apparent over the years, the concept was extended to children approaching death, including gravely ill newborns, and then to babies with a prenatal diagnosis indicating that they would likely die shortly before or after birth. Perinatal hospice and palliative care integrates the philosophy and expertise of hospice and palliative care with best practices in perinatal bereavement care. At first the concept was called perinatal hospice, because many of the life-limiting conditions diagnosed prenatally do result in a lifespan that is brief and appropriate for hospice care. But as this model of care has developed, its application broadened to also include care for babies who may have a longer lifespan, and the concept has become more frequently referred to as perinatal palliative care.

Perinatal hospice and palliative care is a beautiful and practical response to one of the most heartbreaking challenges of prenatal testing.

Where can parents find perinatal hospice and palliative care support?

See the list of perinatal hospice programs, or ask your caregivers. (If your caregivers don't yet know about perinatal hospice, show them this website and help inform them!)

What if there isn't a program nearby?

Even without a formal program, you can still take a perinatal hospice approach with your pregnancy. You will need to make decisions and advocate for your needs and the needs of your baby, which can be challenging when you are overwhelmed with sadness. You might need to educate your health care team about perinatal hospice. Ideally they will be supportive and willing to learn; sometimes it's necessary to change providers to find someone who is more open to helping you. Even if you have to take the lead, you can be energized by knowing that you are parenting your baby in ways that will honor this child as well as your role as parents. See the resources for parents for many resources about birth planning and ways to celebrate your baby. (For one family's story of traveling this path without a formal program, see Waiting with Gabriel.) Perinatal hospice is not a place. It is a model of care and an extra layer of support. Although having an established perinatal palliative care team is ideal, even without one it's possible to create a loving perinatal hospice experience for you and your baby.

Doesn't hospice mean giving up and losing hope?

No! Hospice and palliative care are about providing a different kind of medical care, with different kinds of hope. This approach is about providing comfort and dignity both for the person who is terminally ill and for the family and extended circle. Hospice can be a frightening word, but it doesn't mean giving up on your baby. A core principle of hospice and palliative care is to not intentionally hasten death. (International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care) Palliative care can be provided along with medical intervention to improve the baby's life, sometimes even including surgery, if the intervention would be of benefit and not unnecessarily burdensome to the baby. Babies with the same condition can vary greatly in their ability to sustain life. A few babies surprise everyone with their strength and are able to "graduate" from end-of-life care and live longer than expected. Hospice and palliative care follow the baby's lead, honoring the baby's life.

For a baby who is expected to die, parents' original wishes and dreams for their child’s long life are shattered. But their hopes can change direction: for the baby to be treated with dignity, for the baby to be protected until death comes naturally, for the baby's life to be filled with love. Parents who have chosen perinatal hospice have said that this kind of care helped their hopes be fulfilled.

Which conditions are appropriate for perinatal hospice?

Parents choose perinatal hospice and palliative care for a wide range of life-limiting conditions including anencephaly, Trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome), Trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), bilateral renal agenesis (Potter's syndrome), severe heart defects, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, and others.

What if the doctor says my baby is incompatible with life?

Terms such as "incompatible with life" and "fatal fetal abnormalities" are not defined medical terms. Some doctors use these phrases to summarize what they think the outcome of your baby's diagnosis will be. You can ask for more details: Does the doctor expect that your baby will die before birth or sometime afterward — minutes, hours, days, weeks, months? Based on what evidence? In cases of Trisomy 13 or Trisomy 18, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that some babies with these conditions can live significantly longer than doctors have assumed. These doctors say using the term "lethal" can be a subjective judgment about quality of life and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. These doctors recommend avoiding the term "lethal" and assessing a baby's individual prognosis instead. This doctor with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told the BBC that "fatal foetal abnormality" is not a medical term, explaining: "No doctor knows exactly when a fetus is going to die. ... We're all fatal. A life of a few minutes can be as perfect as a life of 60 years."

What if the diagnosis is wrong?

Prenatal diagnosis is not perfect. At birth, some babies' conditions are less or more severe than predicted. Sometimes the diagnosis was ambiguous all along. On rare occasions a diagnosis was wrong and the baby is perfectly healthy. Perinatal hospice and palliative care encompasses all these scenarios. A baby might be born stronger than expected and seeming to say that she's able to fight to stay awhile longer. In this case, doctors may be able to offer a better prognosis with short-term aggressive medical intervention, and parents may decide that this is warranted. Another baby might be born weaker and sicker than expected, seeming to say more urgently that all he needs is comfort and love, and parents can change their plans accordingly. You can do what's called parallel planning to think ahead about scenarios that might be possible for your baby. Decisions and plans can always be adjusted as the baby makes his or her needs known. You can let your baby lead you.

Why would anyone continue a pregnancy like this?

Some question why anyone would continue a pregnancy with a baby who has a condition labeled "incompatible with life." For some parents, terminating the pregnancy is unthinkable. Others may consider it, unsure of which path would be the more bearable or compassionate choice. Fundamentally, choosing to continue is a parenting decision that honors the baby as well as the parents. It allows you to parent your baby as long as possible and to protect your child for as long as he or she is able to live. Ultimately, it allows you to give your baby — and yourself — the full measure of your baby's life and the gift of a peaceful, natural goodbye. Continuing the pregnancy is not about passively waiting for death. It is about actively embracing the brief, shining moment of this little life.

Isn't continuing the pregnancy harmful to the mother's mental health?

In an era of evidence-based medicine, it's important to note that there is no research to support the popular assumption that terminating a pregnancy with fetal anomalies is easier on the mother psychologically. In fact, research to date suggests the opposite. Research suggests that women who terminate for fetal anomalies experience grief as intense as that of parents experiencing a spontaneous death of a baby (Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1993) and that aborting a wanted baby with congenital defects can be a "traumatic event ... which entails the risk of severe and complicated grieving." (Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2004) One longitudinal study found that after 16 months, 20 percent of women who terminated for fetal anomalies "showed pathological levels of post-traumatic stress." (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2009) Another study found that 14 months after terminating for fetal anomalies, nearly 17 percent of women were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as post-traumatic stress, anxiety, or depression. (Archives of Women's Mental Health, 2009) An early British study found that "persistent adverse psychological and social reactions may be much commoner in patients undergoing termination of pregnancy for genetic rather than 'social' indications." (British Medical Journal, 1981) And a Swedish study found that women who terminate for fetal anomalies experience "physical and emotional pain, with psychosocial and reproductive consequences." (Midwifery Journal, 2016) Termination is not a shortcut through grief.

The logical next question is how these parents' emotional outcomes compare with parents who continue their pregnancies. A study in the journal Prenatal Diagnosis concluded this: "Women who terminated [following prenatal diagnosis of a lethal fetal anomaly] reported significantly more despair, avoidance, and depression than women who continued the pregnancy. … There appears to be a psychological benefit to women to continue the pregnancy following a lethal fetal diagnosis.” A study in France found that grief in both groups was similar, but those who terminated their pregnancy expressed more guilt. (Journal of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, 2019) The field of perinatal palliative care is relatively new and more research is needed, but evidence is accumulating about those who continue with good support from their caregivers. Parental responses to perinatal hospice are "overwhelmingly positive" (Frontiers in Fetal Health, 2000), and parents report being emotionally and spiritually prepared for their infant's death and feeling "a sense of gratitude and peace surrounding the brief life of their child" (Sumner, Textbook of Palliative Nursing 2001). According to one literature review, "The science suggests that perinatal palliative care is welcomed by parents and is a medically safe and viable option" (Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 2013). In a study of 405 parents who continued their pregnancies following a life-limiting prenatal diagnosis, an overwhelming 97.5 percent of parents reported that they did not regret their decision. (Journal of Clinical Ethics, 2018). Parents who participated in A Gift of Time also overwhelmingly expressed gratitude and peace regarding their decision to continue.
 
The well-being of a pregnant person is
WOMAN . Pregnant WOMAN. Anyone who doesn’t accept that only wimmin have babies can have absolutely no opinion at all on pregnancy issues. Get tae fuck.
Why go through a whole pregnancy for a baby you're just going to have to bury?
At risk of PLing, i have seen this up very close, and basically - because it’s your baby, and you want to hold it and say goodbye. Women who get hit with a terrible diagnosis that’s incompatible with life I think have sympathy from most, but not all of them want to just yeet it like it’s a bit of burned cake and start again. It’s still a baby, it’s still your child, and if it’s born, and lives a few hours while you hold it and say your goodbyes then that IS what’s therapeutic.
Nowadays everyone expects a woman to just carve it out like it’s a shameful mistake and throw it away and ignore it like it never happened and start again. But a baby is a baby, and there is no shame in birthing it and then letting nature take its course. Now if that’s not what a woman wants to do in a terrible life threatening (for the baby) situation then I think that’s her choice, but I HATE this thing pushed in the media that unless it’s all perfect you just press reset and start the level again.

I think abortion is always killing and I also think there are a very few times where it may be the lesser evil (if a woman has kids, and her health is seriously threatened by a pregnancy that won’t survive then her health comes first.) killing adults is always killing too, but the law accepts that in very restricted circumstances it is justified.
but we’ve gone so far beyond any kind of sensible restrictions now to the point activists just want elective no-reason up to birth in demand and that is simply abhorrent.
 
It was self defense, man. Them fuckin' 23 babies all came at him at once maliciously and unprovoked. When that many babies get together they're like piranha. Three people testified that if he hadn't killed those babies, they'd have killed him.
In all seriousness, that's what the desire for abortion is about. It's not that women are all 'damn I just love creating dead babies with my hellish hamburger hill pussy', it's having the nuclear option on the table. I draw the comparison to people that want to carry a gun: what if someone is about to fuck my whole life up, and the only way out is to shoot him? I'm sympathetic to that point of view, but it's a bad idea to give out freebies, and women are very very 'weak' on the self-defense question in return.
 
In all seriousness, that's what the desire for abortion is about. It's not that women are all 'damn I just love creating dead babies with my hellish hamburger hill pussy', it's having the nuclear option on the table. I draw the comparison to people that want to carry a gun: what if someone is about to fuck my whole life up, and the only way out is to shoot him? I'm sympathetic to that point of view, but it's a bad idea to give out freebies, and women are very very 'weak' on the self-defense question in return.
Does this mean I should fully support abortion if I believe in gun rights?
 
You're giving birth to something, be it dead or alive. And the trauma of giving birth to something dead cannot be truly described. Imagine what it's like to push a human corpse out of yourself. At least if they're born alive you don't have to deal with that.
The physical trauma of delivering a full-grown newborn is much worse than having it cut apart in your uterus in my opinion. Even if it's seated correctly to come out head first, there's still all physical damage that occurs (tearing, etc) for a baby that's going to die. If it has to be delivered via C-section, that makes future pregnancies potentially more difficult due to scarring on the uterus from incisions. The recovery from a C-section can be painful, too. Delivery complications like hemorrhaging as well. You increase the risk of pelvic floor issues and vaginal prolapse all for a baby you know is going to die soon. I personally support abortion for congenital defects that will seriously impact the life of the child, and in cases of rape. Both added together are less than 10% of all total abortions and can easily be written into law as an exception to anti-abortion law.

If I knew my baby was going to be born with Harlequin ichthyosis, I'd terminate it immediately. Fuck that!
 
Back