No.

Two letters, indicating a negative. I don't want to, I don't have, I can't do. Simple. Easily understood. And crystal clear. 

 

Unless you're a woman. 

 

For women, this simple, immutable word is never taken at face value. It's a starting point for negotiations, at best. It's assumed that no woman ever really means “no”. She simply wants to be convinced to say yes. 

 

And if she insists upon remaining unconvinced, it's perfectly okay to override her “no” anyway. Because even if she doesn't change her answer, her “no” holds no power. It doesn't have to be acknowledged, much less honored. Because her “no” is not as important as someone else's “yes”.

A week or two ago, I stumbled across a Facebook post in which the poster stated that a married woman had an obligation to accommodate her husband's sexual needs, regardless of her own desire to have sex. That her answer should be yes, always, no excuses. And, of course, it wasn't enough that she was willing to rescind her own right to say no. She wanted all women to follow her example. 

 

Over the next few days, the theme kept popping up. The Cosby verdict, in which a woman who clearly said no, in a life situation in which “yes” would have been so out of character as to be absurd, whose accused attacker openly admitted to performing the actions he was accused of – under oath, no less – still resulted in a mistrial, a hopelessly deadlocked jury.

Because half, a full half of the people sitting in that jury box were completely incapable of believing in that woman's “no.”

That was followed up by a story highlighting North Carolina's law that outright states that a woman has no right to change a “yes” to a “no”, even in the face of actual violence being inflicted upon her. 

 

This morning, it was a story about a young woman in Alabama, who not only had her rapist's case thrown out on the grounds that she didn't physically fight him, but was actually charged for taking his handgun and three dollars out of his wallet, before she escaped his locked bedroom through a window. 

 

She committed suicide. By the way. The one “no” they can't take away from us.

The refusal to hear “no” is not limited to sex, of course. It shows itself every time a woman states that she doesn't want children. “You'll change your mind.” “You're too young to be sure of that right now.” “How can you be so selfish?!” 

 

It's why women are routinely denied permanent contraceptive options, if they don't meet a certain set of conditions – usually multiple children and more than halfway through their fertile life. It's why they're denied abortions. 

  

And the real magic of this entire situation, the absolute master stroke of sadistic irony, is this:

We are constantly, endlessly told that the entire responsibility for anything that happens to us hinges on our saying no... and making it stick. 

 

The game is quite literally rigged in such a way that if you don't say no... you lose.

If you don't say it loudly enough... you lose. 

 

If you don't back it up with physical violence... you lose.

If you do back it up with physical violence, you are guilty of a crime... and you lose.

If you say it, fight back, scream, break things, and it's ignored anyway...

You lose. 

 

There is no way to win the game. None. Advantage always goes to the house.

All of this has come at a time where I am finally seeing clearly just how deeply this phenomenon has affected, and directed, my entire life. I learned very early that my “no” was powerless, that it wouldn't be listened to, or honored. As a result, I spent years twisting myself into knots to try to meet everyone's expectations without ever saying “no” to anyone. 

 

It was a miserable way to live. 

 

I'm tired of watching us live like this. I'm tired of a game rigged to make one entire half of the population the only ones who are ever at fault for anything that happens to them.

For the first time in my life, I'm in a relationship in which my “no” is valid. It's listened to, it's honored. It's the most terrifying, disconcerting, anxiety-inducing thing I've ever dealt with... but it's also wonderful, and amazing, and it feels so good. 

 

I wish I'd figured this out a lot earlier. I will never give it up. And more than anything, I want everyone to feel like this. 

 

It's time to take back our no. We can't stand back and let this ridiculous game continue. We need to call out those who would minimize and dismiss our refusals, those who would demonize them, and us for daring to speak them. 

 

This is your life, and it's the only one you'll ever get.

Take it back. Make it your own.

Say NO.

Precedent

I love words. All words. I've loved words since I was a very small child, worshipped them even before I could decipher them. Words are instruments of power – everyone knows this. They can create worlds, tear them down, reshape them in reality and in our perception of reality. 

 

Today's word is “precedent.” 

 

Dictionary.com defines precedent as follows:

1. Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

2. any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations. 

 

This piece was originally going to be about the Texas Supreme Court's recent unanimous ruling in Pidgeon v. Houston. I planned to point out that withholding spousal benefits from one group, but not others, violated the precedent set in Loving v. Virginia. We have already visited this issue, I planned to say we have already determined that when it comes to the legal contract of marriage, and all the rights and responsibilities that contract confers, you can deny certain aspects to all -- but if you only deny them to some, based upon specific criteria, you are performing an act of discrimination and are therefore in violation of law. 

 

While I was researching the case in preparation for this piece, I pulled up the original court filings. And it was there that my focus suddenly changed. Because this isn't, was never, about spousal health benefits being extended to a small group of Houston's city employees, and certainly not about denying them to the even smaller group that make up those who are in legally recognized same-sex marriages. 

 

It's about precedent. And it becomes obvious when you read these words:

“On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292(2016)(App. C), and held that a Texas law that protects the safety of abortion patients must give way to a court-created right to abortion that cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. See John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973). The Supreme Court also disregarded the rules of res judicata and refused to enforce a severability clause in the state’s abortion law, even though the Court’s precedents had held emphatically that severability was a matter of state law that binds the federal courts. See Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 290 (1924)(holding that a state court’s “decision as to the severability of a provision is conclusive upon this Court”); Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 121 (2003)(“Severab[ility]is of course a matter of state law. See Leavitt v. Jane L.,518 U.S. 137, 139 (1996)9(per curiam)”). It is clear that the current Supreme Court will continue to use its power to advance the ideology of the sexual revolution until there is a change of membership. And that makes it all the more urgent for this Court to narrowly construe the Obergefell ruling and provide clarity for Texans and Texas court to avoid disrespect of the Constitution and the rule of law.”

Let me say it again: this is about precedent. 

 

They want to ensure that they, the state of Texas, have the right to simply ignore any federal law they disagree with, for any reason. They want to be free to impose their morality upon the personal lives of every citizen of their state, in the form of legislation that restricts certain behaviors they find unacceptable. 

 

They want to punish people for the choices they make as concerns their relationships, and the fruits of those relationships, by withholding benefits, funding, medical treatment, state services. 

 

They want to be free to refuse even basic necessities like public toilet facilities. 

 

And they want that right extended to every state in the nation.

Because “precedent”.

If this case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court next, they may get just that. Any state would have the ability to restrict the rights of those they find “immoral” or “undeserving” of basic rights. And far too many states would take full advantage. 

 

It's a small case, affecting a very small number of people. It seems unimportant. But as I said when I started... words have power. Precedent is one of the tools built by words. And with this ruling, they've turned it into a bulldozer that could tear down the entire foundation this country was built upon. 

 

Under pressure from Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and other high-ranking Republicans, the Texas Supreme Court are trying to set a precedent that goes against everything we stand for. We cannot let this stand. 

 

We are all equal in the eyes of the Constitution. 

 

Let's keep it that way.

Her Life Mattered

I've spent the majority of my day so far over at a Facebook post concerning Ava Barrin... a seventeen year old trans girl who was killed in Athens, Georgia. She is the 14^th trans woman of color killed this year, and the page the post is on is an inclusive feminist page that has been sharing these incidents to raise awareness. 

 

I stepped into the thread because a trans friend of mine had commented on it, in reply to someone else's comment. The comment he was replying to asked how many cis women were murdered by their spouses this year. 

 

Because the best way to honor and show respect for a dead little trans girl is, of course, to completely wipe her existence from the conversation and make it all about your own existence, your own issues, and your own voice. 

 

I've been watching this behavior escalate for the past few years, and escalate exponentially over the last few months in particular. It seems as though, for some, any discussion that focuses on a subject that doesn't directly impact them, personally, must be turned around until they are, once again, the only people being talked about, the only ones with problems, the only ones being oppressed, beaten down, disrespected, the only ones who matter. 

 

It's the basic premise of “All Lives Matter.”

It's the basic premise of “Men's Right's Matter.”

It's the basic premise of, in this case, “Cis Women Murdered By Their Spouses Matter.”

And they seem incapable of seeing what it is they're actually saying.

“All Lives Matter... but white lives matter more than those belonging to people of color, so we want to stop discussing their lives and focus on our white lives instead.”

“Men's Rights Matter... because we believe we are far more oppressed than women, and any discussion where the girls are whining about being raped or beaten should be shut down because our injuries are more important than theirs.”

“Cis Women Murdered By Their Spouses Matter... so much so, that we aren't willing to let dead little girls be mourned without diminishing them and elevating our own losses.”

I am so sick of this behavior. 

 

I am fed up with a world in which so many people are determined to become the center of the universe, to make every single word they read apply to them, only to them, and never ever ever under any circumstances stray off into other areas in which they themselves are not the only topic under discussion. The mot important topic. The only one we should be fighting for. 

 

“Fix this first”, they scream, “look over here, they wail. “I'm the one who's hurt! I'm the one being shit on! They don't matter, their pain, their actual deaths aren't important when compared to the horrible, agonizing life I am forced to lead in this world where bad things only happen to me!”

I'm sorry... but I'm calling bullshit. 

 

I've had enough. 

 

I am one tiny little entity in a world packed with billions of other tiny little entities. I matter no more... and no less... than any single one of my fellow human beings. My pain matters, Their pain matters. My life matters, their lives matter. 

 

Equally. Full stop. 

 

Honoring a dead little trans girl does not make my life insignificant. The only real difference between us is that I'm still breathing... and she's not. She is getting attention because of that difference. Not because she's “better” than me. Not because she's more “important” than me. 

 

Honoring her does not erase me, my life, my experiences, my problems, from the equation. They're still there, they still matter, we are still fighting to make them better. We are simply taking a moment out of our day to highlight someone else's struggle, their loss, their tragedy. And once we've done that, we'll get back to work fixing the other things.

If you aren't willing to allow anyone else to be the center of attention, ever... you're not fighting for everyone's rights. You're fighting for your own, to the exclusion of all others.

And if that's what being a “feminist” means to you... well, I hate to burst your bubble, but you've picked the wrong label. 

  

You're not a feminist. You're selfish. Nothing more, nothing less. At least have the honesty to own it.

A Statement On the Upcoming Election

This one goes out to all those I have seen recently who have been stating that they will not vote for the "lesser of two evils". That they will "follow their conscience" and throw their support to a candidate that cannot, and will not, win the Presidency.

I, too, plan to vote my conscience this coming election. In the twenty-eight years I've been casting a vote in Presidential elections, I have only voted major party twice - for Dukakis in my first, and for Obama in my last. Every other vote I've cast, every single one, has been for a third-party candidate.

Not this time.

There is currently one Supreme Court vacancy. There will absolutely be at least one other, and perhaps more, over the next few years. And put simply, I categorically refuse to allow any Republican the opportunity to appoint, and sit, a judge who will not uphold the current laws as outlined in Roe v Wade at a bare minimum. Lest you forget, RvW already has restrictions on late-term abortions. Not once have I seen HRC state a position on the subject that in any way implies that she is willing to extend the restrictions already in place. Nor do I believe she will nominate a judge who will.

I've also seen a fair amount of accusations about those who rely on their privilege to justify their decision to throw their vote away... and make no mistake, it will be a throw-away vote, accomplishing exactly nothing. As much as I hate the system we currently live under, that hatred does not change the simple fact that there are not even close to enough voters out there to make any third-party candidate electable. But again... your right, one I myself utilized for decades. Have at it.

But as far as those accusations of privilege go... every one of you deserves to be called out, hard, for the actions you take that are, absolutely, based upon your certainty that any adverse consequences will not affect you in any major way. It won't be your head on the chopping block, you tell yourself - and as long as you can be fairly confident that you will walk away with nothing more than a few bumps and bruises, it's all good.

I don't have that luxury. I haven't had that luxury since the day I lay on a delivery table, bleeding out, defibrillator paddles slapped to my chest to restart my stopped heart. Not since the day my fatally deformed daughter was delivered dead on arrival, and nearly took me with her.

Because of exactly those people who stand to make those vital appointments to our Supreme Court, who fully intend to alter the makeup enough to further tighten the restrictions that already have enough power to allow a hospital to neglect my care in favor of "saving" a fetus who could not, in any world, be saved.

No, I do not have your privilege. I bled and died for the principles I stand for now. I cannot, in good conscience, allow a single, solitary human being to risk what I did. And for the record, that includes those commenting who, by virtue of their innate biology, do risk that situation, whether they are willing to believe it or not.

I'm not going to waste my time begging you to change your minds. You have every right to vote however you choose, and that includes throwing your vote away for the satisfaction of throwing a big middle finger to the establishment. Enjoy it... no one knows better than I what a wonderful feeling it is, for those few short moments. And quite honestly, I'm really not that worried about your votes anyway. I don't actually believe you make a significant enough percentage to have any real bearing on the outcome of this election.

I, however, will vote my conscience. And if I'm wrong, if it's you who tip the balance and put people in office who stack the courts, and cause the preventable deaths of wives and mothers by the tens of thousands over the next twenty, thirty, forty years...

I will be the one with the clear conscience. It won't be of much consolation, as I mourn those who pay for your intransigence...

But it will be at least one straw I can cling to, and for me, that's enough.

Conversations on Human Rights

I received a message today from a woman who stated she was a pro-life feminist, after commenting on a post she made on Facebook - one that was taken down immediately after my comment, or I would include it. I thought I would post both the message and my response here.

V. S.

Hi Jennie- Thank-you for your comment to my post. I sensed it best to message you as my hope in posting the comment was to simply bring overdue, and loving, attention to the children in the womb who need our protection as well as to mothers in need, including, post abortive mothers. I don't plan to engage in public debate now, although, that can be good.

There can be no debate, today though, that a child in the womb is simply that; a child in his or her earliest stages of life. Human DNA is present at conception. You and I; we were that earliest stage. An abortion kills a child. Just as the law protects children from parents killing their children, so it should with regards to abortion. I am sure my own children have caused me psychological stress over and over; children tend to do that as does love). I am sure I've caused them psychological stress! However, that gives me no right to take their lives and vice-versa. Maybe a parent in stress can get help to have their child(ren) cared for and-or adopted.

It is rare that a woman will lose her life during her pregnancy today with the benefit of medical technology, however and especially because this can occur, it is important to define this. For example, in etopic pregnancy both a mother and child can lose their life. Also, a good friend of mine was five months pregnant and it was discovered that her baby was attached to her uterus an, that, my friend could hemorrhage with a likelihood of death if she carried her baby to term. My friend sacrificed and went into the hospital where she stayed until her baby was able to be delivered prematurely through surgery. Today both she and her son are well and more than thriving.

Please know that I, too, am post abortive and it wasn't until I found the healing in a loving God I'm growing to know through that part of God who is forgiveness and mercy and so much more, Jesus, that I was able to truly begin my healing process and, yet, there is still grief that I took the life of my unborn children. I accept that grief today along with the love and forgiveness of our Creator. Many women become pro-abortion, adamantly, because the pain and grief of the abortion(s) they've experienced is too great to bear and, somehow, making abortion legal can, for some of us, make it seemingly ok then, on the outside, but it is the inside of us women which bears the pain, truth, and loss. Thanks again for taking the time to read my post.




J. F.


Okay, first of all, you need to know that I am in no way post-abortive, having never HAD the procedure. On only one occasion did I seek an abortion. It was denied. My (of necessity) final pregnancy resulted in an anencephalic daughter - she was diagnosed at 28 weeks, at which point my doctor recommended an immediate termination, due to the risk of carrying four times the normal amount of amniotic fluid in this pregnancy. The hospital board denied his request, and I was informed I would carry my fatally damaged child to term and deliver naturally. During that delivery, my water broke, and as my doctor had predicted, tore my uterus to shreds. As a result, I spent the next two weeks in an ICU. I coded twice. I required six pints of blood to replace what was pouring out of my body, and my uterus was removed.

By the way, I'd like to point out that every one of those "rare" pregnancies that result in severe complications represents a real human being - a wife, a mother, a sister, daughter, best friend. I've always wondered at the pro-life mindset that is unwilling to accept the death of so much as one single unborn child - but has no issue dismissing the preventable deaths of thousands of women each year, and the permanent injury to hundreds of thousands more. Perhaps it's merely a question of whether one supports ALL human life, or only supports human lives before birth. Even when those lives will end before birth even occurs, or end in immediate death by suffocation after delivery.

I know no one who disputes that a fertilized egg is the initial beginning of every human life on earth. The dispute comes when one tries to determine which life has the highest value and must therefore be sustained at all costs. For the pro-life side, the unborn fetus owns this ultimate value - no life currently being lived by any person on earth is more valuable than the one in the womb, regardless of developmental stage or ability to sustain life after birth. Even when that unborn child will, with absolute certainty, not survive birth, it must be the sole priority, and any lives lost in the effort to effect the natural delivery of that child are considered to be an acceptable price to pay. For the pro-choice side, a proven viable life, i.e., one already born and self-sustaining, takes precedence over one still unproven.

In truth, the impassable divide between the two points of view comes down to one simple issue - a pro-choice individual believes that the choice to risk one's life must ALWAYS be made by the person whose life stands on the line, and is willing to give their full support no matter what choice is made. They would no more fault a woman who decides to deliver a child that has the potential to cause the woman's death or personal injury, than they would fault a woman who decides that she is not willing to face that risk. The pro-life individual tells women that they WILL face that risk, and will be given no option otherwise, nor will any mitigating circumstances be considered. In my opinion, such dictatorial behavior cannot be supported.

In no other realm of human existence do we require a person to risk their life or health for any reason - this is why the draft has been illegal for nearly half a century.  In no other realm is a person required to provide biological support to sustain another person's life - this is why we are not allowed to require people to donate blood or bone marrow, and why we need written permission to remove an otherwise usable organ from even a corpse. By banning abortion, we place pregnant women in a category in which they are required, by law, to face risks and perform actions that are required of no other class of person, regardless of how many people may be injured or killed by a non-pregnant person's refusal to face those risks. The only way this treatment may be justified is by placing the unborn child at all stages in a category exclusive only to them, one in which they have rights no other human life is entitled to - and by extension, putting pregnant woman into a category in which they lose rights given to every other human life, unborn or otherwise. If this is an acceptable view to you, feel free to work towards making it a reality. But please refrain from stating that you support equal rights of any kind, as your view endows a special class of rights upon one stage of life while removing rights from a single class - and gender - of other lives.

It IS a War.

(This was written in response to a commenter on a friend's posting of a Planned Parenthood meme on their Facebook wall. During the back-and-forth, the commenter asserted that, "It's not anti-choice, it's pro-life. We believe women have plenty of choices but murdering their children should not be one of them. If you don't want kids, close your legs. That's the real choice." He then went on to state that, "If you know the consequences, such as getting pregnant means I have to carry a baby to term, you might think twice or at least take precautions. You would not be denied because of your act, you would be denied because the Right To Life of the child should be protected. It's not your body at that point." My friend then stated, "while we’re living on this planet, in this country, due to irreconcilable differences in morality, it is highly inconsiderate to restrict access to contraception and abortion based only on one group’s opinion with disregard to the dire circumstances many people find themselves in. If you begin restricting access, you risk people with serious need for emergency termination of pregnancy not being able to get it."

This was my response. I'm sharing it here because it covers many of the issues we're currently facing in what is undeniably an open war on an entire gender.)


D*****'s reference above to the restriction of access to contraception has prompted me to follow up on that - because far too often, I see claims that no one, anywhere EVER, is considering such actions. I present Exhibit 1... Colorado House Bill 14-1133, introduced yesterday: http://www.leg.state.co.us/.../EBF408A1297E838B87257C3000...

Let me hit the high points for you - the first line reads, "This bill prohibits abortion and makes a violation a Class 3 felony." It goes on to define pregnancy as, "THE HUMAN FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE CONDITION OF HAVING A LIVING UNBORN HUMAN BEING WITHIN HER BODY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EMBRYONIC AND FETAL AGES OF THE UNBORN CHILD FROM FERTILIZATION TO FULL GESTATION AND CHILDBIRTH." Fertilization is defined as, "THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN A MALE HUMAN SPERM PENETRATES THE ZONA PELLUCIDA OF A FEMALE HUMAN OVUM." The only exception to this prohibition is if "a licensed physician performs a a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother". No exceptions for rape. No exceptions for incest. No exceptions for fetal anomalies incompatible with life. No exceptions for health of the mother.

I need to point out here that this means that the mother's life must be in IMMEDIATE danger - you don't get to say, "If this woman's water breaks, her amniotic sac is so overfull due to the child's defect that it will certainly shred her uterus, cause massive internal bleeding and leave her at risk of death." You must wait until her water DOES break, shreds her uterus, and causes that massive internal bleeding before you may begin the procedure to save her.

To continue - this bill goes on to state the following: "NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT THE SALE, USE, PRESCRIPTION, OR ADMINISTRATION OF A CONTRACEPTIVE MEASURE, DEVICE, DRUG, OR CHEMICAL IF IT IS ADMINISTERED PRIOR TO CONCEPTION AND IF THE CONTRACEPTIVE MEASURE , DEVICE, DRUG, OR CHEMICAL IS SOLD, USED, PRESCRIBED, OR ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS."

Sounds reasonable. right? No restrictions there, right? Except... wrong. By including the phrase, "if it is administered prior to conception", they have now outright banned all use of Plan B and its equivalents - as those are administered after a reasonable expectation of conception. They have also laid the groundwork for banning ALL hormonal birth control options and mechanical devices such as IUDs under the premise that, like Plan B, et al., they work in part by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.

Now, in all likelihood, this bill will never make it out of the Colorado House, much less the Senate, and even were it to jump THOSE hurdles, Governor Hickenlooper would never sign it. Even in the event he did, the first line makes it so unconstitutional as to be laughable - it would never stand up to a SCOTUS review. But these ARE the measures that so-called "pro-life" supporters want put in place. Similar bills have been presented in other states, as well as ballot measures proposed, voted on, and invariably defeated by wide margins, in multiple elections and states as well.

This isn't about "poor choices" or "morality" in any sense of the word, as victims of rape or incest MADE no poor choices and did nothing immoral. Nor did mothers gestating babies so damaged as to have no chance of survival. Nor did wives facing situations in which their health, or very life, is in grave danger - but not yet to the point where if nothing is done, they will certainly die.

And this is not about abortion. This is about whether a woman has the right to ANY option, other than total abstinence, to prevent pregnancy PERIOD. Combine these measures with proposals by certain legislators *coughRichardBlack(R, VA)cough* to legalize marital rape, and what you're looking at is a picture of a segment of society that wishes to relegate women to sub-human status whose entire worth is located in their reproductive organs - to give the entire gender no right to refuse the sexual use of those organs or the incubation of any product of that use.

And THAT, sir, is an open declaration of war. Full stop.

Baylee's Story, Part Two

I read this morning that Wyoming is now considering a bill to ban abortions at the first sign of a fetal heartbeat - somewhere around six weeks into the pregnancy. The justification for this is that a heartbeat somehow is an indication of "life". Problem is, that's not entirely accurate. And even if it was, it can be a horribly unfair way to decide what will and what will not be allowed - which is why I'm writing this. Sometimes, the appearance of "life" is nothing more than an illusion, and the consequences of continuing what I'm going to refer to as a "terminal pregnancy" - physical, mental and emotional - are far worse than most people can imagine.

In April of 1996, I gave birth to a daughter with anencephaly. I'm not going to go into the full description - if you're interested, the story can be found here. The part I'm concerned with here is the last few weeks of that pregnancy. Specifically, the period of time after we were told what was wrong, and what was going to happen next.

That something was wrong didn't come as a big surprise. Baylee was my fifth pregnancy - once you've done it that many times, you get a pretty good feel for what constitutes "normal", at least within your own personal experiences. And very little about this pregnancy fit my definition of "normal". I got too big, too fast, and by the time the diagnosis came through, my body was in full revolt.

One of the side effects of an anencephalic pregnancy - and the reason I was so much bigger than I had ever been with any of my previous pregnancies - is the over-production of amniotic fluid. In my case, over three times as much as I should have had. This puts an unbelievable amount of pressure on a woman's internal organs. Standing was bad. Sitting was nearly impossible. And lying down was a distant memory. The only position in which I was even remotely "comfortable" (and believe me, I'm stretching the definition to the breaking point here) was on my knees with my arms braced in front of me, so that my stomach was being pulled forward enough by gravity to allow me to take a breath. Anything else put so much pressure on my lungs that I could get no more than a sip of air at a time.

Eating and drinking were also incredibly difficult. As with breathing, I could only take in a very small amount at a time - there was simply no room for my stomach to expand. The pressure also induced heartburn beyond anything I could have even imagined. A simple glass of water meant a thirty-minute ordeal that would leave me gasping in pain.There was not a single food I could swallow that wouldn't cause a burning sensation in my chest and throat, and that was if I was careful. If I wasn't, the acid would rise to the back of my mouth (I've often wondered how much that contributed to the total loss of every molar in my head over the next few years).

Those were just the physical issues, though. As bad as they were, women are accustomed to dealing with a fair amount of discomfort during pregnancy, and though this was well beyond that "fair amount", it was still something that could be handled. Far worse than that were the mental and emotional effects.

There is almost nothing our society loves more than a pregnant woman (assuming she has a ring on her finger, at least). We hold doors for them, give them our seats... and we so often want to share in their joy. We ask them when are you due, if it's a boy or a girl, have you picked out names...

Now try to imagine what those questions can be like for a woman who has been told that her child will not survive their birth.

There were so many times that I just wanted to lash out at those questions. "What am I having? Why, neither, I'm giving birth to a dead baby" was one that came to mind often. I've never been built that way, though - that level of rudeness simply isn't in me. So my most common response was a very short answer to the question, accompanied by a quick retreat from the questioner. I mumbled a lot. Eventually, I simply tried to avoid leaving the house altogether. Standing in line at the supermarket when every word out of a stranger's mouth makes you want to cry... or scream... becomes more of a hassle than it's worth. I'm very grateful to my husband, who took over the shopping and bill-paying chores when it finally became too much for me.

And then there was the worst moment of all - one that my older daughter doesn't remember, but that I will never be able to forget.

One week before the stillbirth of my child, I was at the store when a woman approached my older daughter, holding the hand of her own son, who looked to be about five. She smiled and asked her if she wanted a brother or a sister, and told her that she was having a baby, too, and her son wanted a little brother. My daughter replied, "Mommy says I'm going to have a sister... but she's not going to live with us, because she doesn't have any brain and she's going to die."

That, at least, was one stranger I didn't have to escape... she looked at me in horror, and quickly walked off, dragging her son behind her. That was also the last time I left the house until after it was all over. Part of me - a very uncharitable part, to be sure - still wishes I could have heard the conversation between her and her son after they left. But most of me wishes that it hadn't happened at all.

It all comes down to this: none of the above was necessary. Yes, Baylee had a heartbeat - right up until they cut the umbilical cord. What she didn't have, what she never had, was a chance. Without a brain, she was incapable of breathing on her own. A heartbeat is nothing more than muscle movement. Hearts have been made to beat without even being inside a person's chest. There is more to "life" than a functioning muscle, and until there is a legitimate way to determine what does constitute a viable life, it can not be the sole method of determining such. As heartless as this may sound to those who believe that abortion is wrong in all cases... in mine, it would have been a blessing. I would have been able to spend those last few weeks in physical comfort, if not mental and emotional. I would have been able to start the grieving process without having to fight through the pain and discomfort. I would have been spared the well-meaning but incredibly painful questions from strangers. And in a world with some sanity, with some compassion - with fewer people who think that their view is the only possible "correct" view, and that abortion is somehow always unnecessary and evil, no matter the circumstances that lead a woman to that decision - it wouldn't have happened at all.