[SparkyBass]

Article in our local central AZ paper:

“Surgery that ended the life of the fetus TO SAVE THE MOTHER’S LIFE”...

is that true? Or is it just another case of reporters covering for abortion and painting the church bady?

[wagglebee]

No, it was not necessary to save the mother's life:

Bishop Olmsted ‘gravely concerned’ by abortion at Arizona Catholic hospital

 

Phoenix Catholic hospital: Doctor lauds nun who approved abortion

Phoenix Catholic hospital defends abortion that took place there; bishop warns of excommunication

[righttackle44]

IT is true. The mother was in her 11th week of pregnancy when she went in. She suffered previously from chronic hypertension. Then severe pulmonary hypertension set in. Her heart and lungs were in danger of shutting down. At 11 weeks, the baby was not considered capable of living on his or her own.

Consultations between the doctors, the family and a member of the ethics team produced the same conclusion. That the mother was going to die if immediate steps were not taken.

Unfortunately, the diocesan and US Conference of Catholic Bishops public relations efforts have failed to answer the medical questions. The Catholic Church has come to understand that there is a difference between direct abortions and infant deaths that happen as the result of life-saving medical procedures can be allowed, albeit on narrowly defined medical grounds.

But the Bishop and the Bishop's conference, decided that the baby could be saved and the mother's disease healed. The doctors did not see it that way. The doctors believe that the mother's chances of dying in the then-present situation were 100 per cent.