Pregnant women are being turned away from anti-abortion state ERs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were pregnant living in one of those backward states, I'd be super scared. I wouldn't even go visit those states when pregnant in fear of needing urgent medical care and being turned away.

I completely agree. I am 100% certain that I would be childless today if doctors had been forced to behave this way during my unexpectedly complicated pregnancies.

Also agree. These forced birther states are going to drive down their birth rates by making pregnancy more dangerous in these places. It is already dangerous enough.

That’s why birth control is next.

If only more men were willing to use condoms and take male birth control pills. Women aren't getting pregnant on their own.

Are you talking rape?
Or you simply should learn to choose more wisely?

DP. There are still two people involved and two people responsible for consensual sex that leads to procreation. If you're going to snipe at one for making bad judgement calls, you should be sniping at both equally.

You want to counsel both people when a pregnant woman needs medical care? Do you know what thread you’re on? This thread is about how forced birther policies are leading to pregnant women unable to access medical care.

I didn't realize we were counselling people who needed medical care in this thread. I'm pretty sure you (or the PP I was responding to) were being an asshat to women. Let me go check.

If only more men were willing to use condoms and take male birth control pills. Women aren't getting pregnant on their own.

Are you talking rape?
Or you simply should learn to choose more wisely?

Yep. That was it. Let's not snipe at just one person by gender for choosing unwisely, when two were involved. While we're at it, let's not put on airs that we are practicing medicine in this thread, because that's just being an idiot.

No, you’re talking to multiple different people. You suggesting counseling in this specific thread makes absolutely zero sense.

Ha ha. Irony there -- YOU are talking to different people, as well. Didn't recognize that, did you?

I never suggested counselling at all. All I've noted is that if someone (and I acknowledged might not have been you, mind) wants to criticize women for making poor choices, there is always someone else just as culpable there.

Omfg. This thread is about pregnant women being denied health care.

So let's not insinuate they're in that position for making bad choices, right? Crass move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were pregnant living in one of those backward states, I'd be super scared. I wouldn't even go visit those states when pregnant in fear of needing urgent medical care and being turned away.

I completely agree. I am 100% certain that I would be childless today if doctors had been forced to behave this way during my unexpectedly complicated pregnancies.

Also agree. These forced birther states are going to drive down their birth rates by making pregnancy more dangerous in these places. It is already dangerous enough.

That’s why birth control is next.

If only more men were willing to use condoms and take male birth control pills. Women aren't getting pregnant on their own.

Are you talking rape?
Or you simply should learn to choose more wisely?

DP. There are still two people involved and two people responsible for consensual sex that leads to procreation. If you're going to snipe at one for making bad judgement calls, you should be sniping at both equally.

You want to counsel both people when a pregnant woman needs medical care? Do you know what thread you’re on? This thread is about how forced birther policies are leading to pregnant women unable to access medical care.

I didn't realize we were counselling people who needed medical care in this thread. I'm pretty sure you (or the PP I was responding to) were being an asshat to women. Let me go check.

If only more men were willing to use condoms and take male birth control pills. Women aren't getting pregnant on their own.

Are you talking rape?
Or you simply should learn to choose more wisely?

Yep. That was it. Let's not snipe at just one person by gender for choosing unwisely, when two were involved. While we're at it, let's not put on airs that we are practicing medicine in this thread, because that's just being an idiot.

No, you’re talking to multiple different people. You suggesting counseling in this specific thread makes absolutely zero sense.

Ha ha. Irony there -- YOU are talking to different people, as well. Didn't recognize that, did you?

I never suggested counselling at all. All I've noted is that if someone (and I acknowledged might not have been you, mind) wants to criticize women for making poor choices, there is always someone else just as culpable there.

Omfg. This thread is about pregnant women being denied health care.

So let's not insinuate they're in that position for making bad choices, right? Crass move.

You really don't understand what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

I understand you (or another PP) are shifting blame solely onto the women who get trapped in the current political situation. You shouldn't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand you (or another PP) are shifting blame solely onto the women who get trapped in the current political situation. You shouldn't do that.

Good grief. Anything to change the subject from the fact that forced birther politics are universally damaging to women’s healthcare, full stop. It’s not about life, it’s damaging to women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this case is at all related to anything "anti-abortion:"

Consider what happened to a woman who was nine months pregnant and having contractions when she arrived at the Falls Community Hospital in Marlin, Texas, in July 2022, a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion. The doctor on duty refused to see her.

“The physician came to the triage desk and told the patient that we did not have obstetric services or capabilities,” hospital staff told federal investigators during interviews, according to documents. “The nursing staff informed the physician that we could test her for the presence of amniotic fluid. However, the physician adamantly recommended the patient drive to a Waco hospital.”

Waco hospital is just over 30 minutes from Falls Community.
I am wondering why a 9 month pregnant woman would go to a hospital that does not have OB services. Did she not have any prenatal care and know what hospital she was scheduled to deliver at? I would never dream of showing up at a hospital with no OB services and expect them to deliver a baby.

pretty short sighted response
many rural areas of the US are losing OB services (this is BESIDES obs leaving states with restrictive abortion laws) but leaving people with much longer distance to reach hospitals with more comprehensive services. Who knows if the woman had even had prenatal care of any significance? Hospitals without OB services have been and are found in violation if they do not provide medical screening and, if needed, stabilization. It is their job to arrange transport via ambulance if patient needs medical services they can't provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to OB/gyn and ER doctors, I am also hearing that endocrinologists are avoiding these states as well. Most of these states already had a doctor shortage so this is a particularly perverse result for them. And totally predictable. I feel really bad for the people at places like UT, UF and UA medical school, all of which are excellent med schools that people have spent their lives building into credible institutions that are now unable to fully train doctors.

Right.. I've heard before abortion was legalized starting in the 1960s there were few doctors. The 1950s were utter hell.

fwiw Roe v Wade wasn't decided until 1973. NY legalized abortion in 1970, I don't know of any other state that did.
But it may have been a little easier for doctors to perform therapeutic abortions, at least for people who had the means. They trained docs how to perform abortions back then, plus since pregnancy couldn't be diagnosed as early then, they could do a D&C without officially knowing why someone's period was late.

I doubt illegality of abortion had anything to do with doctor shortages before Roe v Wade though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to OB/gyn and ER doctors, I am also hearing that endocrinologists are avoiding these states as well. Most of these states already had a doctor shortage so this is a particularly perverse result for them. And totally predictable. I feel really bad for the people at places like UT, UF and UA medical school, all of which are excellent med schools that people have spent their lives building into credible institutions that are now unable to fully train doctors.

Right.. I've heard before abortion was legalized starting in the 1960s there were few doctors. The 1950s were utter hell.

fwiw Roe v Wade wasn't decided until 1973. NY legalized abortion in 1970, I don't know of any other state that did.
But it may have been a little easier for doctors to perform therapeutic abortions, at least for people who had the means. They trained docs how to perform abortions back then, plus since pregnancy couldn't be diagnosed as early then, they could do a D&C without officially knowing why someone's period was late.

I doubt illegality of abortion had anything to do with doctor shortages before Roe v Wade though.

Before Roe v Wade, there were septic wards to treat women in sepsis from home or back-alley illegal abortions.

1. BuzzFeed, but from a doctor who was in medical school in 1972:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/allanweiland/i-saw-the-horrors-of-the-pre-roe-era
Opinion: I Saw The Horrors Of The Pre-Roe Era. Let's Never Go Back

2. PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-abortion-bans-will-likely-lead-to-more-deadly-infections
How abortion bans will likely lead to more deadly infections

Doctors were trained on how to recognize this, but there was often a bit of don't-ask-don't-tell. And as you point out, there was not the ability to do more elaborate screenings to tell exactly what was going on.

Interestingly, some of the strongest proponents for safe and legal abortions were clergy and other religious leaders, including rabbis:
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529175737/50-years-ago-a-network-of-clergy-helped-women-seeking-abortion
50 Years Ago, A Network Of Clergy Helped Women Seeking Abortion

[Anonymous]

My mother got pregnant in 1962 and about 4-5 months into her very wanted pregnancy she found out that she had cancer. The doctors performed an abortion sometime in her second trimester and it was heartbreaking for her and my dad. She went through chemo and was allowed to get pregnant with me. Obviously the chemo she had did not affect her fertility. Unfortunately, the cancer came back and she died in 1974.

My dad always told me this story in a very matter of fact manner. There was never any mention of difficulties with obtaining an abortion. She was in Chicago, so I have no idea whether it was more difficult in other areas of the country.

Without abortion, I would not exist. I'm so f-ing tired of these forced-birthers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mother got pregnant in 1962 and about 4-5 months into her very wanted pregnancy she found out that she had cancer. The doctors performed an abortion sometime in her second trimester and it was heartbreaking for her and my dad. She went through chemo and was allowed to get pregnant with me. Obviously the chemo she had did not affect her fertility. Unfortunately, the cancer came back and she died in 1974.

My dad always told me this story in a very matter of fact manner. There was never any mention of difficulties with obtaining an abortion. She was in Chicago, so I have no idea whether it was more difficult in other areas of the country.

Without abortion, I would not exist. I'm so f-ing tired of these forced-birthers.

It definitely was more difficult other places. Chicago was the birthplace of the Jane Collective and a "hub" for abortion (like NYC) pre-Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's weird there are people who think medical pregnancy complications can be solved with relationship counseling. Any woman who gets pregnant can have emergency medical needs.

That's wild people who want to get pregnant/ are pregnant in Idaho may need to purchase emergency air transport insurance so they aren't bankrupted if they have a medical emergency.

Oral arguments in Idaho’s desperate attempt to kill women in the name of “life” took place this morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird there are people who think medical pregnancy complications can be solved with relationship counseling. Any woman who gets pregnant can have emergency medical needs.

That's wild people who want to get pregnant/ are pregnant in Idaho may need to purchase emergency air transport insurance so they aren't bankrupted if they have a medical emergency.

Oral arguments in Idaho’s desperate attempt to kill women in the name of “life” took place this morning.

I wonder how many women have died.

I wonder why forced birthers think so little of women that they’re okay with emergency care being portioned out to the lucky few in dollops like this.

I wonder what lies the forced birthers (bought and paid for by Leonard Leo and his dirty friends) will tell as they rule against women’s lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird there are people who think medical pregnancy complications can be solved with relationship counseling. Any woman who gets pregnant can have emergency medical needs.

That's wild people who want to get pregnant/ are pregnant in Idaho may need to purchase emergency air transport insurance so they aren't bankrupted if they have a medical emergency.

Oral arguments in Idaho’s desperate attempt to kill women in the name of “life” took place this morning.

I wonder how many women have died.

I wonder why forced birthers think so little of women that they’re okay with emergency care being portioned out to the lucky few in dollops like this.

I wonder what lies the forced birthers (bought and paid for by Leonard Leo and his dirty friends) will tell as they rule against women’s lives.

[Anonymous]

Why is no one talking about the gross absurdity of yesterday's Supreme Court argument? "Well, if a state has decided that it's better that a woman die instead of having an abortion, who are we stop them?"

Even Justice Barrett was shocked by the indifference shown by the Idaho lawyer, and that doctors who make a professional judgment that an abortion is needed medical care could end up being prosecuted.

Justice Barrett asked what would happen if a local prosecutor did not agree with a doctor’s judgment that an abortion was necessary.

When Mr. Turner answered that “it is very case by case,” Justice Barrett joined in: “I’m kind of shocked actually because I thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered,” she said.

Even as Mr. Turner responded that such cases would be covered if a doctor acted in good faith, Justice Barrett continued to probe.

“What if the prosecutor thought differently?” she asked. “What if the prosecutor thought, well, I don’t think any good-faith doctor could draw that conclusion.”

“That, your honor, is the nature of prosecutorial discretion, and it may result in a case,” Mr. Turner said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/us/politics/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is no one talking about the gross absurdity of yesterday's Supreme Court argument? "Well, if a state has decided that it's better that a woman die instead of having an abortion, who are we stop them?"

Even Justice Barrett was shocked by the indifference shown by the Idaho lawyer, and that doctors who make a professional judgment that an abortion is needed medical care could end up being prosecuted.

Justice Barrett asked what would happen if a local prosecutor did not agree with a doctor’s judgment that an abortion was necessary.

When Mr. Turner answered that “it is very case by case,” Justice Barrett joined in: “I’m kind of shocked actually because I thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered,” she said.

Even as Mr. Turner responded that such cases would be covered if a doctor acted in good faith, Justice Barrett continued to probe.

“What if the prosecutor thought differently?” she asked. “What if the prosecutor thought, well, I don’t think any good-faith doctor could draw that conclusion.”

“That, your honor, is the nature of prosecutorial discretion, and it may result in a case,” Mr. Turner said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/us/politics/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban.html

Probably because we’re all still reeling that the GOP is giddily trying to kill women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/23/trump-losing-courtroom-campaign-bragg-trial/

The way half-way forced birthers comfort themselves about the draconian politicians they support is by telling themselves the lie that women’s lives will be spared. Not only will women’s lives not be spared, prosecutions will be on a case by case basis, and will be entirely random, at least from the perspective of the doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is no one talking about the gross absurdity of yesterday's Supreme Court argument? "Well, if a state has decided that it's better that a woman die instead of having an abortion, who are we stop them?"

Even Justice Barrett was shocked by the indifference shown by the Idaho lawyer, and that doctors who make a professional judgment that an abortion is needed medical care could end up being prosecuted.

Justice Barrett asked what would happen if a local prosecutor did not agree with a doctor’s judgment that an abortion was necessary.

When Mr. Turner answered that “it is very case by case,” Justice Barrett joined in: “I’m kind of shocked actually because I thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered,” she said.

Even as Mr. Turner responded that such cases would be covered if a doctor acted in good faith, Justice Barrett continued to probe.

“What if the prosecutor thought differently?” she asked. “What if the prosecutor thought, well, I don’t think any good-faith doctor could draw that conclusion.”

“That, your honor, is the nature of prosecutorial discretion, and it may result in a case,” Mr. Turner said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/us/politics/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban.html

It’s appalling. Alito reaching absurd levels of cartoon villainy.