On Wednesday's "World News with Charles Gibson," host Gibson highlighted a woman suffering from breast cancer who chose to keep her baby instead of having an abortion while opting to be treated during the second and third trimesters when her baby would likely be able to withstand the chemotherapy. Gibson recounted the story of the new mother who "spent her pregnancy fighting to save her baby's life and her own," relaying her choice not to have an abortion. Gibson: "Her doctor told her she could abort the baby, but Linda found specialists who told her there was another choice, that she could treat the cancer and carry her child to term." (Transcript follows)
Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Wednesday November 28 "World News with Charles Gibson" on ABC:
CHARLES GIBSON: Finally, we don't normally have birth announcements on this broadcast, but tonight, an exception. The new arrival is just 48 hours old, and we introduce you to her because earlier this month, we introduced you to her mother, who spent her pregnancy fighting to save her baby's life and her own. In the course of just a few days last April, Linda Sanchez learned she was pregnant, and that she had breast cancer.
LINDA SANCHEZ, Cancer patient: It's a lot to think about April.
GIBSON: Her doctor told her she could abort the baby, but Linda found specialists who told her there was another choice, that she could treat the cancer and carry her child to term.
Dr. Jennifer Litton, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: Yes, chemotherapy is toxic, but what we found is that when given in the second and third trimester, it appears to be safe.
GIBSON: And so Linda underwent several rounds of a specific type of chemotherapy. And by early this month, her tumor had shrunk 60 percent. Then, this week, Linda checked into a hospital, labor was induced, and on Monday-
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The delivery went picture perfect.
GIBSON: Meet Isabella Marie Sanchez, five pounds, two ounces. 18 inches long, and born with a full head of hair. Just the 70th baby born in what was once a controversial program for pregnant women with breast cancer.
SANCHEZ: She's something. I'm just really happy I finally have her here. Because I felt like I waited forever.
GIBSON: Linda knows this is not the end of her battle with cancer, but she is optimistic.
SANCHEZ: I've got about four more sessions of chemo at every three weeks, and then, after that is surgery, and after surgery, we're gonna do radiation. And that should be it.
GIBSON: Mother and child, Linda and Isabella, are expected to go home from the hospital this evening.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Imagine that Charlie
November 29, 2007 - 01:32 ET by Cool ArrowA woman more concerned about her baby than herself.
You're just astounded aren't you Gibson?
Slash and Burn
November 29, 2007 - 01:38 ET by Lame CherryWonderful of ABC to feature the Rockefeller AMA slash and burn in a post aborticide torture...........when it is well known, even covered by the major networks, that an entire clinic is operating using Royal Rife's radio frequency treatment of cancer sickness.
I know the media covered it because I saw it on the major networks...........but yet Charlie pulls the heart strings of , You too can have a baby but you must use the Rockefeller fry the body.
I hope this woman researches a bit more and someone contacts the treatment clinic and at least can explore her options before they start hacking on her body and frying it.
This all sounds "Rense", as he has promoted allot of goofy things, but I have read reports and saw this covered by a major network (It was ABC or CBS not one month ago.) This radio frequency treatment is being used on people afflicted with cancer.
Royal Rife the founder of it in the 30's actually was healing people before the AMA shut him down. Cancer like all disease and life forms vibrate at a specific frequency. So like a glass or bridge exposed to mirror frequency it will shatter as we have all seen, sickness will too.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
No stinging barbs ... Just
November 29, 2007 - 01:40 ET by drillanwrNo stinging barbs ...
Just G-d bless to Mom and Baby.
ditto, drill, my thought
November 29, 2007 - 07:33 ET by motherbeltditto, drill, my thought exactly.
And I hope she really beats the cancer permanently and gets to see that little angel grow up.
Selfish mother
November 29, 2007 - 13:17 ET by Conservative BluesI'm shocked that Chuck didn't berate Linda for having Isabella when the baby could possibly grow up without a mother, if (God forbid) she succumbs to the cancer. How could this mother be so cruel as to bring a child into the world knowing that she "might" grow up motherless? (Can you see the sarcasm dripping?) It would be better if she was not even born!
Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Medically necessary???
November 29, 2007 - 15:16 ET by LionKingI have asked this question a multitude of times and I will ask again until I get an honest answer...
When is it medically necessary to abort a baby in order to save the mother?
God Bless Mother and
November 29, 2007 - 15:26 ET by bigtimerGod Bless Mother and Child.
Beautiful....as it should be.
I am flabbergasted that a
November 29, 2007 - 19:45 ET by jdhawkI am flabbergasted that a drive media type would actually talk about a child as a baby versus the usual name for a child that is not yet born, fetus.
Meanwhile, over a million children will be aborted in America this year.
Christina Dunigan
November 30, 2007 - 08:44 ET by GrannyGrump42I'm not sure, but I do know that moms with cancer, multiple organ transplants, diabetes, and lupus can all be brought safely through pregnancy with care. The measure of success in medical journal articles I've seen hasn't been maternal survival -- which is assumed -- but fetal survival and whether or not the child was delivered prematurely and what health problems he or she had.
Mary Calderone, then Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote in 1960, "[M]edically speaking, that is, from the point of view of diseases of the various systems, cardiac, genitourinary, and so on, it is hardly ever necessary today to consider the life of a mother as threatened by a pregnancy."
Consider the progress we've made in the nearly fifty years since then.
Doctors recommend abortion more for fear of lawsuits -- or perhaps laziness -- than because it's medically wise.