By Joan Bailey
During my daughter’s pregnancy, an ultrasound showed she had a single umbilical artery. Most babies’ umbilical cords have two arteries and 1 vessel, but my grandson’s only had 1 artery and 1 vessel. Since the kidneys and heart develop at the same time as the umbilical cord, there was a possibility of abnormalities. So at 20 weeks, my daughter was referred to a pediatric cardiologist and a pediatric urologist. Both specialists performed a number of tests including a cardiac ultrasound, echocardiogram and an ultrasound of the baby’s kidneys. It was discovered that my grandson only has one kidney so another appointment was made with a pediatric nephrologist to come up with a game plan after she gives birth.
Now, my daughter is 32 years old, so obviously she doesn’t need a pediatric specialist for herself. But she has medical bills and statements from a pediatric specialist for her son prior to his birth. Well, I got to thinking: if an unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights, why is my daughter receiving medical bills from pediatric specialists before her child was born? Why even visit a pediatric specialist until the child is born?
If we have a heart problem or kidney problem for ourselves and we visit a cardiologist or urologist, we don’t then get separate medical bills in the name of our heart or kidney.
So if that fetus is a separate patient in the eyes of the massive healthcare system in our country, even before his birth, then it follows that the scientific medical community really does recognize he is an individual person, a real human being who has individual constitutional rights before and after birth. It’s only logical. It’s common sense. It’s science.
Joan Bailey is Director of Friends of the Unborn