I was an anti-abortion advocate, but after being forced to carry my dead baby for months, it's made me rethink EVERYTHING
Elisabeth Weber grew up an ultra-conservative Christian and used to protest outside abortion clinics.
The now 31-year-old mother from South Carolina believed at the time that she was doing the right thing.
But now, Weber has found herself in the crosshairs of the very abortion laws she once supported, unable to terminate her pregnancy, even after her baby had died.
She was overjoyed to be pregnant again, naming the child Enzo despite not knowing the gender because, in her heart, she felt certain it was a boy.
But at her nine-week ultrasound, doctors couldn't find a heartbeat. They told her the fetus measured just over six weeks, about the size of a pea.
Follow-up tests confirmed that the baby had died. Her doctors recommended a termination to avoid infection or a potentially life-threatening hemorrhage.
But because of South Carolina's near-total abortion ban after six weeks — one of the strictest in the country — she was forced to carry the non-viable pregnancy for weeks.
In a tearful video posted online, Weber said: 'I grew up very Conservative Christian. We stood outside of abortion clinics. Like, that was my growing-up years.
'But what you guys need to understand with these laws is it's not just people who are going having elective abortions that are being affected... because my baby is dead, my baby doesn't have a heartbeat, my baby is gone, but I am not allowed to do anything about it.'
Sobbing, she added: 'I just sit here and wait for another week and suffer and have a chance at hemorrhaging and have a chance at infection all because of these stupid laws.'
South Carolina imposed a six-week fetal heartbeat law in May 2023, which forbids all abortions after week six, around the time a fetal heartbeat is first detected.
The few exceptions include when the pregnant mother is experiencing a medical emergency or fetal anomaly, and in cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement during the first trimester.
In cases where a heartbeat is not detected at six weeks, patients are still asked to wait at least another two weeks to prove a pregnancy is non-viable and that due care has been taken, according to lawyers in the state.
After doctors first concluded Weber's baby was dead, she was sent home to try to miscarry the fetus naturally.
But her morning sickness continued unabated and she did not miscarry, leading her to return to doctors to ask for a termination.
They refused, saying they could not end the pregnancy unless she was hemorrhaging or suffering from sepsis, a life-threatening blood infection.
Weber then went to another hospital, where tests showed her white blood cell count was very high, suggesting an infection, but that staff at this hospital also concluded they couldn't end the pregnancy.
What followed was a grueling three-week wait before doctors finally decided they would be able to end the pregnancy.
She had a dilation and curettage, where the cervix is dilated using medication and a surgical instrument is inserted that gently removes the tissue lining the uterus to end the pregnancy.
She is heartbroken by the whole process, saying it led her to take weeks off work and delayed her getting the chance to mourn her dead baby.
She has set up a GoFundMe to help cover expenses, which has so far raised $5,211 out of the $6,500 goal.
Weber has three other children aged six, five and 18 months. She also had a son who died in 2018 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
She is no longer an ultra-conservative and said she has left her religion and did not vote for President Donald Trump.
She was a member of the International House of Prayer, an ultra-Christian group that often takes a pro-life view on abortion.
She revealed her issues in a post on TikTok, that has now been viewed more than 213,000 times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Finextra
37 minutes ago
- Finextra
Why is regulation no longer a priority for US financial services?
0 Financial regulation in the US is so yesterday's news. Based on recent actions and/or comments from the Trump administration and the regulatory agencies assigned to measure and monitor a multitude of factors that surround and secure the country's financial system, oversight of banks, savings institutions and credit unions (FIs) – and even emerging sectors and those previously deemed 'risky' - isn't a top federal priority anymore. The Trump administration's postings and pronouncements in the first half-year of its tenure don't only involve reducing 'red tape' for existing financial providers and products under the purview of these agencies and others. They're also aimed at opening up the industry to new or potential products, services and entrants like crypto firms, buy now pay later (BNPL) companies, money service businesses, and other banking and fintech upstarts. New regulations cancelled, pending ones pulled, some fingers pointing to potential reasons why The marketplace in financial services is in constant flux, which is one of the reasons - along with the fact that the industry deals every second with payments, deposits, and transfers of hard-earned cash and earnings which consumers and businesses trust to be safely managed - that it has been closely regulated by the federal government for at least 100 years. As agency oversight of all kinds continues to be deemphasised by the Trump regime, keep watching as other fringe financial products and services emerge over the coming months, and advocacy for consumer protection either wanes or increases as result. Then there are the vexing 'separation of powers' and ethical issues involved. Some industry enthusiasts and others have pointed out that the Trump family's ownership and development of various cryptocurrency and other assets raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest related to personal profit and the president's influence on industry regulations. The Supreme Court may end up confronting some of these issues, though it's anyone's guess exactly when or how this would occur. Old and new financial services rules dropped, loosened under new Trump agency heads According to the Brookings Institution's Center on Regulation and Markets tracker, some of the substantial changes that have been made by Trump administration agencies to overturn previously Biden-passed or sponsored initiatives directly or tangentially involving financial services include 'nullifying' the previous cabinet's rules or executive orders limiting overdrafts for large financial institutions, protecting Americans from harmful data broker practices, governing the introduction and use of digital assets, setting the future of cryptocurrency regulation, and ensuring the development of secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence tools. Dropping enforcement actions, already on the books from the previous administration, is just a start. Some would argue there are other decisions not mentioned above but listed on the Brookings tracker - like Trump's executive order withdrawing the US from the Paris climate change agreement – that have major impacts on financial services as well. This is because financial institutions in general and especially some of the world's largest firms headquartered in this country have been identified as linchpins – due to their influence on the policies of multinational to smaller companies using their lending and other banking services - to achieving net zero carbon emissions or other environmentally related goals in the US, but across the globe. Bank and fintechs wrestling with upheaval of 'catch-and-release' 'America First' tariff edicts The current administration's 'America First' trade policy and increased or newly instituted tariffs on products made by countries from A to Z clearly have a substantial impact on financial institutions and fintechs as well. They have quickly changed the nature and likely the total number of international transactions handled by banking firms. The constant revisions and restatements of tariff policies and rules and frequent delays or suspensions of regulatory implementation for such import taxes against supply chain partners or suppliers in various nations around the globe have led to significant uncertainty. This lack of clarity impacts not just commercial enterprises and the businesses and consumers who are their customers, but established and emerging banking providers for all of them as well. Open banking regulation – as defined under Biden CFPB, is dead – yet data sharing continues One of several examples of the new administration's direction on financial regulation emerged late in May when open banking reform - via a much-discussed and debated amendment to original post-2008-10 financial crisis Dodd-Frank legislation - was officially deemed 'dead' – at least for now. The partisan Dodd-Frank Act was passed by Congress in 2010 under the Obama administration to help fix some of the damage wrought by what Investopedia termed 'perhaps the worst economic catastrophe to befall the country (and the world) since the Wall Street crash in 1929,' and widespread losses largely caused, they said, 'by greed-driven behavior and lax oversight of financial institutions.' Later, bipartisan legislation was signed in 2018 to reduce the law's regulatory burdens on smaller financial institutions. The '1033 rule,' finalised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in October 2024 after being formally proposed a year prior, was designed to further update Dodd-Frank to modernise industry interoperability and data sharing through use of standard interfaces (APIs.) This would eliminate the 25-year-old practice of 'screen-scraping' (often at the request of customers) of one financial services company's online data records to fill another's held in that same client's name. Rule 1033 provided clear guidelines for greater consumer rights in data control and protection, data handling, and third-party sharing requirements for Fis and fintechs around financial services and inclusion. Though many financial institutions supported 1033's aims in principle, some had strong concerns about the specific technical challenges and potential liability issues that it raised. These were primarily associated with its requirements for managing customer data ownership and responsibilities for data-sharing and permissions among multiple providers. The rule (and with it, most plans to formally progress open banking initiatives) has now been sent back to the drawing board, with its declaration as 'unlawful' by federal regulators as of the end of May. About face on many regulatory fronts thrills some, concerns others in financial services arena In a business world that usually champions laissez faire governmental policies, financial services deregulation or rule repeals as described have been hailed by some as a 'good thing' for business. Some operators, especially those outside of the mainstream FI world, might go even further to say 'no' regulation at all is best. But the Trump team's recent moves to kill or reduce many landmark regulations and cut thousands of agency staff responsible for policy development and ongoing monitoring of financial services providers and rules has been more than a wake-up call for the industry. Advocate groups are worried about reduced protection and oversight for consumer and business accounts and community lending, as well as how federal regulatory retreat might derail efforts to promote financial inclusion of the unbanked and underbanked across society. Indeed, the rapid changes made to financial services regulations and policies have left some in-country and outside observers and even leaders of some individual entities involved concerned. That's because regulations can stabilise and standardise industry rules and expectations (help 'level the playing field') while their detractors might claim they impose undue, unfair limitations on the marketplace. Yet, given recent administration proposals to relax bank capital requirements and privatise government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage arena, more disruption surely looms in the near future for the industry in the coming year. Trump agencies steamroll regulations from A to Z, even as court challenges continue That discord and uncertainty should no longer surprise anyone. Over the past (nearly) six months, the Trump administration and the president's new agency head appointees at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), and of course the much-maligned Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – which as it's been under a 'stop work' order for weeks pending lawsuits now in process, may or may not still exist when you read this - have taken an increasingly hands-off approach to the industry they oversee. Additionally, the Biden era rule that would have added new weight to the nearly 50-year-old Community Reinvestment Act as it 'evaluated bank performance on a nationwide basis' and 'took into account deposit-taking services,' according to a report from the Goodwin Law firm, will now be withdrawn by order of the new management of federal agencies that had previously supported it. Apparently, in this case at least, Goodwin opines, most financial institutions would be in favor, as 'reversion back to the old rules would likely be seen by the industry as a lowering of the regulatory burden.' A bigger and potentially more controversial change under Trump, according to the firm's Bill Stern, comes from new guidance and the proposed removal by the FDIC and OCC of 'reputational risk' as a factor during bank and savings association examinations. This would be a significant departure from policies known well to current financial institutions and compliance departments. In Stern's view, this shift in policy is 'likely to provide some additional flexibility for banks to provide services to companies that present heightened risk – in particular anti-money laundering risk' associated with money services and crypto firms, previously off-limits as customers to most traditional banks (and their regulators.) Mergers and acquisitions get green light despite financial inclusion and consumer cost concerns Finally, regarding government regulators' and Congress's intentions to oppose or contest 'creative' new mergers or acquisitions in the financial services arena, they appear dead in the water as well. The acquisition of Discover by Capital One to create a huge new player (eighth largest bank by assets) and processing power in the cards and payments arena had been challenged by the Biden administration's policymakers for increasing industry concentration among payments providers. The Trump administration dropped its opposition in early April and the deal was approved around ten days later by the Federal Reserve and OCC. Now, as announced by Capital One in May, it is complete. This may be the start of further industry consolidation amid other similar financial services merger approvals. Based on two major rescissions of FDIC and OCC rules on mergers in late May, it looks like the federal agencies' desires to question or contest banking combinations and acquisitions – shaped for more than three decades or more under several prior administrations - have been largely squelched. The message being transmitted now from previously activist financial regulatory bodies to many of their covered entities has shifted, in less than six months, from 'Let's take a closer look at that, because...' to something akin to 'Never mind what we said last year, or during the prior administration - just go for it!'
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Trump happily lights the fuse': Jon Stewart blasts president's role in Los Angeles riots
Comedian Jon Stewart has accused Donald Trump of fueling the riots in Los Angeles, after immigration raids in the city sparked days of major unrest. The Daily Show host said the situation was 'the very predictable result of a liberal city, reliant on an immigrant population, colliding with a heavy-handed MAGA migrant-trawling operation looking to hit its quota of brown Pokemen. Gotta catch 'em all!' Stewart continued: 'So now, predictably, these non-targeted, much broader deportation efforts in cities that feel very connected to the immigrant population is a tinderbox. And Trump happily lights the fuse.' The president deployed thousands of national guard troops in L.A. to quell the protests over the weekend, claiming on Monday that L.A. would have been 'completely obliterated' had he not done so. Writing on Truth Social, Trump said: 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' Trump also said of the protestors: 'If they spit, we will hit', saying such 'disrespect' towards the national guard would not be tolerated. Stewart said this was an interesting shift in stance from the president, who on the first day of his second term pardoned 1,500 people convicted in relation to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots in which hundreds stormed the Capitol building in a bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election result. 'Now, obviously, this is a bit of a change in attitude from Trump towards protecting law enforcement from his previous January 6 attitude of, they hit, we don't give a s***,' Stewart said. Stewart said the situation in L.A. was 'explosive'. 'And quick question for those of you who live in that area: Is your city ever not on fire?' he said. 'Whether you win a basketball championship, a World Series championship, whether you have an exploding pinata gender reveal gone wrong — congratulations, it's a boy and an evacuation! — or you're just protesting the Trump administration's expanded deportation raids, L.A. continues to be our most flammable city.' Trump had authorized the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops on Saturday, and about 300 troops were deployed across three locations on Sunday morning as clashes continued through the day. On Monday, the Trump administration announced it would deploy a further 2,000 troops, a decision slammed by California governor Gavin Newsom who said it was a 'reckless' and 'pointless' effort. 'This isn't about public safety,' Newsom said on Monday. 'It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
President Donald Trump unveils new $1,000 baby initiative in the U.S.
President Donald Trump has unveiled his administration's new $1,000 investment accounts for babies born during his tenure in office. The 'Trump accounts' will be given to every U.S. citizen born after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029. The government's $1,000 contribution would be placed in an index fund tied to the stock market and managed by the child's legal guardians. During an event at the White House on Monday, the President said the accounts 'will make it possible for countless American children to have a strong start in life at no cost to the American taxpayer, absolutely no cost. It's going to have a huge impact'. Named after himself, Trump called the accounts a 'pro-family' initiative as he works to rally senators to support his proposed legislation. It is not the first time that Trump has made sure it's his name that Americans see on a financial statement. He also put his name on stimulus checks the government sent to millions of Americans during the Covid pandemic. Republicans changed the name of the program from 'MAGA accounts' to 'Trump accounts' before the bill passed the House last month. The Trump accounts will be funded by contributions from private businesses. Heads of Dell, Uber, Altimeter Capital, ARM Corp, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Robinhood and Goldman Sachs joined the President for the announcement. The accounts will also be accessible for additional financial contributions throughout the child's life from family, friends, parents, employers, or other entities. Trump noted: 'It is a pro family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies.' The recipient of the account could access some of the money when they turn 18 for things like education, training, or a first-time home purchase. The full balance would be available at age 30. Michael Dell, the CEO of Dell Technologies, said his company would 'match the government's contributions, dollar for dollar for every child born to a Dell team member'. He said: 'This is investment in our people, their families, our communities and America's future, and it embodies our core belief that opportunity should begin at birth.' Democrats are critical of the legislation, which they say will remove millions from Medicaid and add billions to the federal deficit. Some Republican senators, especially those who represent states with large rural areas, also have expressed concern about the cuts to Medicaid. The Senate can still amend the bill, which, if that happens, it would need to be re-approved by the House before it could go to Trump for his signature. Trump has said he'd like to have the bill on his desk by July 4. Some of his own family will benefit. The President's daughter Tiffany Trump and her husband Michael Boulos had their first child - a baby boy - on May 15, 2025. If the pilot program gets approved, Alexander Trump Boulos would qualify for it.
