My husband is paraplegic, but that's not stopping us from becoming parents
Then, two years ago, he was in a traffic collision and became paraplegic.
Though we will face additional challenges as parents, it's not stopping us from having a family.
Two years ago, my husband, Daniel, was in a life-altering traffic collision that severed his spinal cord at his lower back.
He couldn't feel his legs at the scene and was taken away to the ER, where they assessed his condition and immediately sent him to the local hospital for a spinal fusion surgery.
This event almost perfectly coincided with our discussions around family planning and how we finally felt ready to try. We had dated for six years before getting married early in the pandemic and felt we had weathered some of life's hardest challenges together; by this point, we felt as though we were ready for the next step of parenthood.
When Daniel became paraplegic, the kinds of concerns we had radically shifted.
Most new parents-to-be worry about things like the ups and downs of pregnancy or how to maintain the division of labor between working parents. Instead, we face a whole different slew of challenges.
Because of his paraplegia, we can't get pregnant the old-fashioned way and will require medical assistance. There are several methods for sperm retrieval that have escalating costs and medical involvement, with only limited insurance coverage leading to additional out-of-pocket expenses.
His doctor has been excellent in walking us through what these steps will look like and how we can ensure that we can still have children. As might be expected, these physical changes have been hard on Daniel and his understanding of his own sexuality, but haven't dulled his desire to have children. However, this isn't even the primary concern for me.
It's not getting pregnant and giving birth that I'm worried about (although there are plenty of medical uncertainties during any pregnancy), but what life will look like once we do bring an infant home.
Daniel already struggles with sleep most nights due to his chronic nerve pain. How will we manage night shifts with a newborn? Will he be doubly sleep-deprived by nerve pain and midnight feedings, or will the constant lack of sleep worsen his symptoms?
And if Daniel is on nighttime baby duty, what kind of crib do we need to ensure that he can actually reach and pick up our child, and rock them back to sleep without a rocking chair?
I've already begun researching wheelchair-accessible strollers and changing tables to understand what kind of specialized equipment we'll need to purchase, and while there are options available, this limits us from receiving gently used gear from family and friends.
We had been hoping to save money by having Daniel take on the majority of childcare while I returned to work, because he is self-employed as the founder of a worker-owned rum distillery and we need my job's provided health insurance. However, with his limited mobility and irregularly scheduled physical therapy sessions, we are reconsidering day care despite its cost, adding to the already-stacking medical bills.
Though I've not met a single parent who said parenting is easy, our situation provides additional challenges. We're just beginning our parenthood journey and already see the added hurdles we'll have to face. However, we're choosing to have children because it's an important goal in our lives and shows that we have faith in a future together.
Daniel and I have seen children in our future plans. We agreed that our late 20s or early 30s would be the time to start trying; we just didn't expect doing so to require medical intervention or custom childcare equipment to handle the added challenges of disability.
In a twist of fate, we discovered exactly how much incredible support we already have in our community in the aftermath of his injury. Neighbors who would watch our dog while we had long medical appointments, and friends who brought home-cooked meals once a week, while Daniel was inpatient during his recovery.
Even with both our families living out of state, we felt secure having a strong network of local friends who shepherded us through the first year of his recovery, and have already had a few conversations about whether they would be willing to come to our aid once again when we have children.
Our local friends, most of whom are not parents themselves, readily agreed that we can rely on their help. Knowing that we'll have backup in the form of nearby friends makes a difficult situation feel less distressing.
We know having children won't be easy, but we also know that we won't be tackling it alone. We've overcome so many challenges already, and fundamentally, having children is a statement of hope for the future — even if that means needing more complicated baby strollers than most parents have to use.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Medicaid cuts for immigrants in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
(NewsNation) — The White House has posted a 'mythbuster' fact sheet defending its proposed Medicaid changes in President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — but is it accurate? The nearly 1,000-page megabill outlines the removal of 'at least 1.4 million' immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully from Medicaid, the administration said. According to the White House, doing so would strengthen Medicaid for 'the American citizens for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That's not entirely true. No, immigrants who have entered and remained in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for Medicaid. Although they might benefit from some of its services — including emergency care — they aren't eligible for federally funded Medicaid coverage. The Congressional Budget Office and research organizations such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy corroborate these restrictions. Trump-Musk feud reignites over the 'big, beautiful bill' The White House's 1.4 million estimate appears to refer to those with questionable immigration status who will lose coverage due to reductions in state health care programs currently providing them with assistance. These programs are funded by the states, not through federal Medicaid dollars. Some emergency services provided by hospitals are available to people lacking a Medicaid-eligible immigration status. Services include 'those requiring immediate attention to prevent death, serious harm or disability, although states have some discretion to determine reimbursable services,' according to the KFF. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House The foundation estimated emergency care for undocumented patients accounted for less than 1% of Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2023. Trump and most congressional Republicans claim the reductions aren't true cuts, arguing that no one who should be on Medicaid will lose benefits. 'We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it,' Trump said at the White House last week. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House But experts and health advocates say a recent CBO analysis confirms that despite Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. 'This bill isn't being crafted to improve health care in America, or to improve the Medicaid program, or to improve the [ACA]. The purpose of these cuts in the bill is to try to find savings to pay for tax cuts,' said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress. NewsNation partner The Hill contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Tax Bill Plans To Decimate Medicaid. For One Group, The Cuts Will Be Unspeakably Cruel.
Now that the Senate has passed its budget bill, the House is voting this week on taking my ability to commit to medically complex foster children away. That's not what they're calling it, of course, but when this legislation takes $930 billion from Medicaid, it's going to hit foster kids waiting on families hard. Four in 10 kids across the United States are on Medicaid, including 368,000 foster kids like mine, who are entitled to Medicaid benefits through the foster system. All those kids will hurt as a result of these cuts, but for those in the foster system, it could make the difference between finding a forever home or growing up in institutional care. My husband Nic and I have fostered around 30 children over the last 14 years. We know how essential Medicaid benefits are for children in the foster system, nearly half of whom have special health care needs. All children in the foster system are entitled to Medicaid benefits, and for many this benefit is extended after adoption or aging out of the system in order to ensure continued health and safety. Medicaid has saved the life of every single foster child who has come through my doors, and it's what made it possible to foster in the first place — and to adopt some of those foster children, with continuing benefits ensuring that we'd be able to meet their ongoing medical needs. Cuts to Medicaid would be devastating for medically complex foster children like mine across the United States. I know this very intimately because of Ansley, my wonderful little girl who loved the color yellow, balloons and listening to music. Ansley came to us as a foster infant with complex medical issues. We later adopted her and remained her loving family until her death in 2019 at age 5. Ansley brought so much love and joy to our family during her short time with us and activated my 'advocacy bone,' turning me into an advocate for medically complex children in the foster system and giving me the inspiration to keep fostering children like her. Because of Ansley, I am a person who sees people as valuable no matter who they are. Because of Medicaid, I am able to open my home to children like Ansley, who would otherwise be too expensive for us, and most families, to care for. Ansley wasn't a burden, because loving a child is never a burden, but she did have complex medical needs throughout her life. Medicaid's coverage of necessary treatments and therapies also freed up resources for us to provide her with enhanced opportunities, paying for additional services that she needed to thrive and live her best life with us. Medicaid provides essential support that helps medically complex foster children like mine lead full lives at home in their communities, where they know love and companionship and enrich the lives of everyone they touch. Our daughter Luci, a micropreemie born at just 27 weeks, also came to us through the foster system and struggles with behavior and emotional regulation. She receives Medicaid coverage post-adoption to support her critical mental health needs, which will require lifelong assistance to manage. Our youngest girl, Lilah, also a micropreemie who started out in the foster system, was born at 22 weeks and survived because of Medicaid. Medicaid made it possible to bring her home with us, to access oxygen at home and to receive the surgeries and other care she needed to thrive. Members of micropreemie support groups often tell me that without Medicaid, they would have been bankrupt or financially ruined; no one expects a premature birth, and NICU stays cost millions of dollars, with medically complex preemies experiencing high health care needs for life. Five-year-old Z, who was recently adopted after four years in our home, is hearing and vision impaired, has spastic quadriplegia, uses a feeding tube and lives with life altering effects from a traumatic brain injury. He has benefited tremendously from Medicaid coverage of his equipment, such as a Tobii Dynavox eye gaze machine, which allows him to communicate directly with us about when he's not feeling well, which toy he wants to play with and what music he wants to play. He has been able to introduce himself to us and access the community in a way that's simply unreal. He can go to school with his peers and communicate with his teachers, understanding and responding to what they are teaching. This would have been unimaginable without the critical equipment that we could never have afforded on our own. Providing Z with the tools he needs to communicate has opened up his whole world, and ours. Every child deserves this kind of access, and Medicaid makes that possible, allowing foster children with medical complexities and disabilities to find forever families instead of languishing in institutional care, be it the hospital, state facilities or nursing homes. Without it, I would be unable to afford care for my foster children, and the children I've adopted through the foster system would also lose the coverage that keeps them at home, safe and loved, in their community. They could have been forced into institutions because of their medical needs, as is the case with several children we already know are waiting for adoptive homes in state facilities. Medicaid is also crucial for family reunification, the most important goal within the foster system whenever possible. We've had medically complex foster placements who were able to be reunited with family members because of Medicaid; those family members were able to take those children because they knew their medical needs would be covered. They were able to get those children out of the foster system and raise them. It would be heartbreaking for kinship placements to have to hesitate because of financial concerns. As a foster mom, my calling is to care for medically complex children. I do not believe the cruel cuts to Medicaid in this bill are what Jesus meant when He said, 'Let the little children come to me,' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' We are taught to take care of the sick in this world, especially children. I pray that when my time on this Earth is done, I will be reunited with my daughter Ansley. In the meantime, I will ensure that her legacy lives on in the form of providing comfort, love and shelter to children just like her. I cannot imagine having to close our home because of our inability to afford the health costs of a terminally ill or disabled child in need of a family. Disabled and medically complex children already suffer enough. Even one child being denied access to support for home and community living is one child too many. Do you have a compelling personal story you'd like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we're looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@
CBS News
26 minutes ago
- CBS News
Minnesota sheriffs sue Department of Corrections over new state inmate medication law
A newly filed lawsuit is asking for a temporary injunction to prevent from going into effect a new requirement that jails continue to administer medications to inmates that were prescribed before confinement. The lawsuit filed in Minnesota on Thursday challenges the constitutionality of the newly enacted statute. Among those suing Department of Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell are Crow Wing County Sheriff Eric Klang, Becker County Sheriff Todd Glander, Freeborn County Sheriff Ryan Shea, Pennington County Sheriff Seth Vettleson, the Minnesota Sheriff's Association, St. Louis and Todd counties and multiple medical providers. Correctional facilities' "constitutional and statutory" obligation to provide adequate medical care to those in custody would be jeopardized, the lawsuit says, claiming that plaintiffs could be forced to give medications to inmates even if it would result in an overdose, have harmful interactions or be fatal. The statute does allow for changes to an inmate's medication if a facility's licensed health care professional consults with the person who prescribed the medication and gets permission for the change or if the inmate provides a written notice saying they no longer desire to take their medication. However, the lawsuit argues the provisions would be "problematic, if not impossible." "The reality is that inmates and detainees are brought to county jails at all hours of the day and night and every day of the year, including on weekends and holidays," the lawsuit says. "They frequently arrived during days and at times when community medical providers and pharmacies that provide prescriptions are not open and have no means to be contacted." The lawsuit says even if the prescribing providers could be reached easily, that they are "often inexperienced and unfamiliar" with issues correctional health care providers encounter, like alcoholism, use of street drugs, drug diversion and misuse, and other "security-related issues." If jails comply with the law, the lawsuit claims, they could face civil liability to patients and family members for violations of inmates' constitutional rights if the administering of the medication resulted in harm or death. On the other hand, the lawsuit states that if correctional facilities fail to comply with the law, they may risk penalties such as suspension and disciplinary actions on their jail licenses, which could impact their ability to care for inmates. In response to the lawsuit, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said the law will not be enforced until Aug. 1 to give time for a decision to be made on the motion for a temporary injunction order. Ellison asked the court to set a hearing for July to decide before then. The Mental Health Work Group of Communities United Against Police Brutality, which helped craft the law, calls the lawsuit's claims that licensed health care professional would prescribe harmful or fatal medications for their patients "ridiculous." "The need for this reform became obvious as we heard from many people who have suffered serious consequences from being denied their prescribed heart and blood pressure medications, anti-seizure medications, HIV drugs, mental health medications and sometimes even insulin," the group said in a statement. The organization says the statute was named after Larry R. Hill, the son of a former corrections officer who died in the Hennepin County Jail after not receiving his mental health medication. "The provision of mental health medications in the jails is especially important as people living with mental health conditions experience high levels of stress and anxiety in the jails and their conditions often deteriorate," the Mental Health Work Group of CUAPB said. "Ensuring access to mental health medications as prescribed allows people to better regulate their behavior and reduces assaults and other problem conduct within the jails, making them safer for everyone."
