One woman miscarried in the restroom lobby of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to admit her. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.
The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide.
“It is shocking, it’s absolutely shocking,” said Amelia Huntsberger, an OB/GYN in Oregon. “It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care – this is inconceivable.”
It’s happened despite federal mandates that the women be treated.
So abortion being legal actually saves lives ? You don’t say !
I swear, the fact they call themselves “pro-life” while sowing death and misery is completely unacceptable. It’s like them calling themselves “conservative” while destroying nature and society…
Or calling themselves “Christian” while spreading more hate than any other group on earth.
Removed by mod
“It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care – this is inconceivable.”
You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means. This was all predicted as potential outcomes from overturning Roe. It’s not even the first time, because this is what things were like before Roe. You know that quote? “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I used to think it was kind of cliché, but it seems to be more and more relevant all the time these days.
This is an OB/GYN in a different state reviewing the cases at a medical level. You can be 100% sure she knows why they are occurring :
For Huntsberger, the OB-GYN, EMTALA was one of the few ways she felt protected to treat pregnant patients in Idaho, despite the state’s abortion ban. She left Idaho last year to practice in Oregon because of the ban.
What she is saying that it is absolutely shocking that these woman, in deep medical need, were turned away because of cruel and pandering state laws.
Shes making it clear that medically, these hospitals broke their hippocratic oath in order to comply with these heartless state laws while also violating federal law that requires them to provide medical care to those in need.
Oh, I know all that. I still think “inconceivable” is the wrong choice of word. “Monstrous” is good. “Horrifying” works. Even “Heartbreaking”, though that’s maybe a little soft. Unfortunately, it’s all too conceivable.
Corollary: Those preventing history from being taught intend to repeat it.
No, it’s not fucking shocking. It’s an extremely predictable consequence of religious zealotry legislating their sick version of morality.
It is definitely not inconceivable. It is exceptionally conceivable. It is predictable as you said. If you outlaw proper maternal care, proper maternal care will not be given.
As a friend of mine always says, the cruelty is the point.
It won’t bring their babies back, but these sure sound like some slam dunk lawsuits
Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them. Medical facilities must comply with the law if they accept Medicare funding. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday that could weaken those protections.
Let’s see how long that lasts.
Plus, the effect and point of many of these laws is to create massive liability to make pregnant patients untouchables. Running an OBGYN dept is becoming an unacceptable legal risk.
All is working as intended to harm women.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday that could weaken those protections.
And that’s the crux of this whole fucking issue. The orange asshole got elected and weaseled in his judges to tip the balance of the highest court in America.
Just think what else he’ll do if he’s elected again.
I don’t even understand what legal justification the SCOTUS could use to hamper the EMTALA. They would be wildly legislating from the bench to do so.
Like that ever stops them.
Blame everyone who nominated hillary over Bernie :(
Charge the hospital administration with Gross Negligence, Manslaughter and any other charges that will apply and correct this trend. Healthcare isn’t a privilege, it’s a basic human right and access to it should not be denied
The problem is, they’re already in a position where they can get charged if they do treat these women, and end up having to do something the anti-abortion assholes don’t approve of.
Charging them for not treating the women puts them in a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” situation where the only logical course of action is to shut down the hospital and leave the state.
And complete hospital closure is the only thing that will change some people’s minds.
Those charges sure are an improvement over murder in the event the actions of you or your staff could be interpreted as an abortion.
I have no love for hospital administration or their treatment of employees and patients, but it’s an disturbing position with few good answers.
Hospital administration? How about we sue every backwards asshole who supports this unholy philosophy and make them pay for their consequences in real dollars an cents. We’ll see how closely held their values truly are pretty quickly.
This is America
Huh. Those were the exact words that popped in my head while reading the article.
I was half expecting to see that this was in fact in America. this probably wouldn’t happen as flamboyantly in any other country with a barely functioning health care system
Why the hell are security guards and front desk staff making medical decisions? I’m sure their jobs aren’t easy, but this isn’t their job.
Because Texas wombs are controlled by men.
Men
You have a funny way of spelling Republicans
Seeing as the average in the House and Senate is 72% male, “men” works.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2023/01/03/118th-congress-has-a-record-number-of-women/
Lots of these men are Democrats and of course do not support this evil nonsense. It’s Republicans, dog
I get its sexist. But the majority who wanted this anti abortion bill were men. Not only that, controlling female reproduction is the norm for primates and men have shown the same desire time and time again. So yeah, men.
One of the reasons, I presume, is the same reason why some older black people in the south don’t have a birth certificate (and thus now can’t get a voter ID). “We don’t let your kind in here.”
See? Now that abortion is illegal, if you and your fetus die, that’s the way God intended it to be!
Every life is precious and abortion is murder… unless God thinks otherwise, then abort that little fucker, God, and kill the lady for good measure!
Every life* is precious.
*Not including the lives of pregnant women.
Solution: stop fucking conservatives
Lysistrata’s solution only works if everyone agrees. Sadly, there are a lot of conservative women.
Conservatives often breed like cockroaches. They take pride in how many children they produce, impoverished or not. And too often, neglecting their children is just seen as a way to “toughen 'em up”.
Source: Am from the conservative south.
Removed by mod
They should charge the doctor on duty and admins with a crime for that one in Houston – That is massively fucked up. They should have their licenses removed too absolutely unbelievable
Republican politicians are responsible for this, nobody else.
deleted by creator
Yeah I don’t care about the law if I was in charge of a hospital a woman isn’t giving birth in the lobby bathroom after being turned away. Fuck the politicians too though
So fuck the doctors, because they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t?
Go ahead and do that then you don’t have any doctors. Just shut down all the hospitals in Texas you don’t need them. Thoughts and prayers.
I don’t quite understand. How did banning abortions lead to doctors being scared of helping people give birth?
They are threatened to be held responsible and imprisoned for helping a woman abort
In my country medical professionals that help induce an abortion can be imprisoned for 4-10 years. Nonetheless, the thing described in the article doesn’t happen. It must be something else.
I’m assuming it because the legal liabilities are unknowns at this point and nobody wants to take the plunge to find out. The US “Justice” system is pretty fucked to say the least.
Yeah that makes sense.
And in your country I presume the law applies to the entire country, doesn’t vary by state, and wasn’t put into effect in very recent history.
After 10 or 20 years there will be enough legal precedent in each state that doctors and hospitals can formulate policies which will probably keep them safe from prosecution. Right now, they don’t have that capability, because everything is so new. And the only way to find out whether their actions are legal is to try them and see if they get charged and see what the courts say.
It’s important to keep in mind that the states with strict laws against abortion are run by Republicans who really don’t care about the doctors or the women. It’s not like the laws are perfectly crafted to guarantee that patients receive the best possible medical care.
In that case, do you expect these cases to go away with time? Ideally, abortion becomes legal again, but if it doesn’t will time make things at least a little better?
Well what i described is whats here on texas. Dipshit legislator capital of the u.s.
It has some serious competition.
If they accept the patient, and the patient needs an emergency abortion, then they could face legal consequences for providing one, or face losing their license for denying critical care.
Either way, if such a circumstance happens, the doctor is completely fucked, and they’d rather keep their job, and help other people.
There’s confusion about what is and isn’t allowed, which isn’t helping. Doctors don’t know what they could be sued for. Its in their best interest to not see patients like this. Doctors need protections at least, but governments have specifically taken steps to make them liable, and this confusion and refusal is part of the plan to make abortions this scary thing.
I live in a country where all abortions are banned. This sort of thing doesn’t happen here. Do you know why that could be? Time?
In the US, abortions are legal in some states and severely punished in other states. As a result, OB/GYN doctors have been physically moving en masse from the latter states to the former states.
This has left the latter states with an acute shortage of OB/GYNs. And if a hospital does not have an OB/GYN who can treat a patient, they will not admit an OB/GYN patient to the hospital.
But doesn’t the article say that there were doctors, but that they refused to perform their job?
The article says that ER doctors wouldn’t perform jobs that required OB/GYN training.
In some states you have to be in the process of “life at risk” before treatment now, or the doctor could be jailed. Lots of articles about this, women nearly dying, losing their reproductive organs, etc. It’s all very dehumanizing.
Because women that need abortions don’t go to regular doctors.
Well they don’t do that in Texas either, do they?
Because the state rules often aren’t clear on what Drs can/cannot do, so they’re scared of being arrested and charged.
It’s a major issue with laws when they intermingle with medical practice. Laws are kind of like bad computer code. It is written with an intention but that intention is only as good as how good your technical ability to write the code is which also hinges on understanding what all the potentially the factors at play are. Particularly when your law has particularly harsh penalties for misconduct.
Human bodies are complicated and a lot of law regarding operates in the space of “potential”. In a court of law in things like self defense cases where you have to defend your actions from persecution by the code have to prove you had no other “potential” avenues to take because if it can be proven you had other choices or there is a chance however small that you overreacted and things theoretically could have turned out fine the law swoops in and leaves you open to prosecution.
But medical stuff is complicated and nuanced in ways the law is not. Law is a rigid computer code. If you have a situation leaves an opening in the law for “cases that are life threatening.” and someone does the thing they then leave themselves open to the potential of having to prove that every single other option was exhausted. If someone is stable and not in immediate distress… Even though you know they will be later given predictable odds it becomes a nightmare of leaving more doubt so one tactic is to just wait until things are life threatening… But the problem with life threatening cases is they hold extra damages and risks. If your life is in danger your organs are failing. There is no question the house is burning down when the flames burst through the windows but if you wanted to mitigate the damages putting it out when the candle first tipped over has the best long term results …
Say a law stipulates that it’s only permissible to help in the event the house is “burning down”. This means you have to agree in a court room that your definition of “burning down” is in fact a reasonable interpretation of that specific language. One tactic to be safe is you wait until nobody can argue the state of the house. Would you say a little spot of your carpet being on fire is the house “burning down”? It’s not good sure but isn’t that hyperbole? What constitutes “burning down” anyway? So your carpet burning isn’t the house burning down and there’s no provision for the the drapes and furniture, or an oil or oven fire… Those are all not causing damage directly to the structure of the house so the house isn’t even burning much less “down”… But if you wait the house will catch fire… But is it “burning down”? It’s when the structure of your house is in danger of collapsing right? Down still implies a fire where the house is pretty advanced and there isn’t much left afterwards right? At what point is the house actually “burning down”? When the structure catches probably isn’t burning “down” is it when 25% of the structure ia compromised? If you put out the fire then the house wouldn’t be “down” would it? Still a lot of house that is in fact “up”. Well 50% is probably a good call right? Oh but then it’s only " in imminent danger of burning down" not actively “burning down” …
Laws like anti abortion laws tend to be created to be big and showy and easy for lay people to read because they are essentially political showboating. Every place with a total abortion ban has shown to be terrible for women’s healthcare in exactly this way and none of this outcome was a surprise to the people fighting to keep abortion legal.
Thanks! Your reply is what finally made me fully “get it”.
The states mention in the article say that you can only abort if the mother’s health is in danger, or in the cases of rape and incest. If you’re treating a pregnant woman and she’s in critical condition, you might be faced with having to do an abortion. If you do it, the courts might say the woman wasn’t in enough danger. If you don’t, the courts might say you caused the patient’s death.
Where I live, abortion is 100% banned (hooray for Catholicism). In some other comments in this chain, I asked why that might now happen here.
This is why. To hell if your house is burning, you are not allowed to put it out. Therefore this choice doesn’t happen and the gynecologists just do their job, or at least try to.
because if they fuck up at all, which happens, or something unforseen happens (which, yeah), they’re liable. legally.
Damn. That is utterly insane.
no its perfectly sane in the context of capitalism.
which is sane. legally, according to the dsm and icd.
Can’t really afford healthcare to save your own kids when you gotta send money over to Israel to kill someone else’s
you didn’t hear it from me, but, so far, no has said that you can’t miscarriage in public.
So, for the two people that would ever want to do that. Have at it.
