Anti-abortion laws cause ID hospital to stop delivering babies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, the prolifers have pushed out obgyns and pediatricians from hospitals due to the restrictive abortion laws, and the hospital will no longer deliver babies.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/20/idaho-bonner-hospital-baby-delivery-abortion-ban

An Idaho hospital has planned to stop delivering babies, with the medical center’s managers citing increasing criminalization of physicians and the inability to retain pediatricians as major reasons.

Bonner General Health, the only hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, announced on Friday that it would no longer provide labor, delivery and a host of other obstetrical services.

The more than 9,000 residents of Sandpoint are now forced to drive 46 miles for the nearest labor and delivery care, the Idaho Statesman reported.

Will we see more such cases all over these anti-abortion states?

How does this relate? In Virginia, no OBGYN ever would perform an abortion, they would refer you to PP. I don't see why this would have any effect on regular OBGYN practice.

Plenty do, they just do it quietly because “pro-lifers” are rabid and violent animals, and they don’t want to live every day in fear for their lives just for taking care of their patients. Also, PP employs OB/GYNs.

[Anonymous]

This is some 3rd world backward BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is some 3rd world backward BS.

even some 3rd world countries allow for abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fwiw, 46 miles isn't that far, in the West.

It’s too far if you’re bleeding out.

+1

Women who want to have children will have to go to cities with OBs and stay in a hotel for the last few weeks of their pregnancy as they do in some Alaskan cities. Only here there’s no reason why it should happen - just Republicans pooping in their own nest.

And preemies are going to die at home or in the car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, the prolifers have pushed out obgyns and pediatricians from hospitals due to the restrictive abortion laws, and the hospital will no longer deliver babies.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/20/idaho-bonner-hospital-baby-delivery-abortion-ban

An Idaho hospital has planned to stop delivering babies, with the medical center’s managers citing increasing criminalization of physicians and the inability to retain pediatricians as major reasons.

Bonner General Health, the only hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, announced on Friday that it would no longer provide labor, delivery and a host of other obstetrical services.

The more than 9,000 residents of Sandpoint are now forced to drive 46 miles for the nearest labor and delivery care, the Idaho Statesman reported.

Will we see more such cases all over these anti-abortion states?

How does this relate? In Virginia, no OBGYN ever would perform an abortion, they would refer you to PP. I don't see why this would have any effect on regular OBGYN practice.

You are misinformed. Everyone doesn't have to go to PP. Even in the Commonwealth PP is not the only option. And who do you think usually performs abortions?

I honestly suspect the forced birthers kind of mentally imagine witches with pointy hats and warts and green skin to be the one to perform abortions.

Considering that forced birthers have about as many abortions as pro choice women, you know they know otherwise. But if only their abortion was moral, so too was their abortion provider a trained professional providing a valuable medical service. Everyone else? Seen by a witch in the sacrifice hut at Planned Parenthood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good example of why I think post-Roe might end up just fine after a bad period (NO pun intended).

State legislators are going to have to look voters in the eye and tell them that not having access to basic services is just right and good. I don't think they'll be able to do that for long.

If it ends with these goons on a deportation boat for the Vatican, our country will be better for it.

That or they double down on the backwards thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fwiw, 46 miles isn't that far, in the West.

It’s too far if you’re bleeding out.

+1

Women who want to have children will have to go to cities with OBs and stay in a hotel for the last few weeks of their pregnancy as they do in some Alaskan cities. Only here there’s no reason why it should happen - just Republicans pooping in their own nest.

And preemies are going to die at home or in the car.

That's part of why I stated it was ironic.

-OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a woman shows up in the emergency room with a baby crowning, will she just get turned away?

No, but she may have to rely on a radiologist or general surgeon to deliver her baby.

Only if they are fools. Call your local pro-lifer for help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a woman shows up in the emergency room with a baby crowning, will she just get turned away?

No, but she may have to rely on a radiologist or general surgeon to deliver her baby.

Only if they are fools. Call your local pro-lifer for help.

Ugg. Have your baby in a state that has some respect for women and modern maternal care if you can manage it. Do these anti abortion freaks think the stork comes and brings these babies? It is a pretty dangerous process.

[Anonymous]

A simple and easy solution is to deny sex to men. Abortion will be legal in every state o rrnight

[Anonymous]

Lack of maternal care has been a problem in rural areas and red states for a long time. It's ironic that this supposed "pro-life" laws will most negatively impact women actually trying to have babies, not to mention their infants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lack of maternal care has been a problem in rural areas and red states for a long time. It's ironic that this supposed "pro-life" laws will most negatively impact women actually trying to have babies, not to mention their infants.

+1
“If I was ever touch a patient again, it won’t be in the state of Texas,” said Charles Brown, chair of ​​the Texas district of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), who stopped seeing patients last year after decades working as a maternal fetal medicine specialist. Many asked that their hospital affiliation not be included in this story, in some cases because they feared consequences from their employer or the public for speaking out about these laws, even though they’re not breaking them. Some worry about what will happen to their own kids if they are targeted. Several cried through the interviews. Many of those I spoke with who haven’t left yet are still thinking about it regularly—people who have family and homes and lives in Texas and would not otherwise have considered moving.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/texas-abortion-law-doctors-nurses-care-supreme-court.html?fbclid=IwAR0RxMepAN-gLuSX-UeriHzXlvhqItlRYvr1fD7LUKjavnX6s_1dl_m-QqQ&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#lfis4ql5q3ujpaioe6f

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lack of maternal care has been a problem in rural areas and red states for a long time. It's ironic that this supposed "pro-life" laws will most negatively impact women actually trying to have babies, not to mention their infants.

It is a very obvious outcome. Not sure why these voters want to drive down the birthrate. It does not make sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, the prolifers have pushed out obgyns and pediatricians from hospitals due to the restrictive abortion laws, and the hospital will no longer deliver babies.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/20/idaho-bonner-hospital-baby-delivery-abortion-ban

An Idaho hospital has planned to stop delivering babies, with the medical center’s managers citing increasing criminalization of physicians and the inability to retain pediatricians as major reasons.

Bonner General Health, the only hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, announced on Friday that it would no longer provide labor, delivery and a host of other obstetrical services.

The more than 9,000 residents of Sandpoint are now forced to drive 46 miles for the nearest labor and delivery care, the Idaho Statesman reported.

Will we see more such cases all over these anti-abortion states?

How does this relate? In Virginia, no OBGYN ever would perform an abortion, they would refer you to PP. I don't see why this would have any effect on regular OBGYN practice.

Look, if someone has a super smooth delivery with a very healthy baby, they will probably still be fine, just any routine postpartum medical care will be a bit delayed until you get to a hospital. And any abortion laws won’t affect that particular delivery.

However, for high complication or high risk deliveries, it absolutely matters. All of these anti-abortion bills have penalties that are going to make doctors think twice or ten times about any intervention. There have been a lot of high-profile cases recently where women are 15-20 weeks pregnant and bleeding out or fetuses have lethal anomalies. But unless the woman’s life is in immediate danger (not just risk of hemorrhaging, must be actual active hemorrhaging; not just likely to develop sepsis but actual ongoing sepsis) the doctors’ hands are tied. So far the ones I’ve heard about are people close to large cities in the south with access to maternal care… now compound that for someone living an hour or more away from a maternity hospital who can’t even get to a high risk OB for those assessments. The hospital mentioned in this thread is in sandpoint, so it was likely already the last hospital until the Canadian border. Everyone in that northern panhandle of Idaho is now going to have to trek to coeur d’Alene which could be 100+ miles and who knows how long on winter roads.

Just a few days ago there was an article about a woman in Texas who’s maybe 28 weeks pregnant. The fetus has a lethal anomaly that causes the head to have swollen to the size of a 39 week baby already. Doctors will still not intervene because when the baby dies (as is inevitable), they may be accused of having precipitated that death by inducing so early. By the time the woman is full term, the head will be so oversized they will likely need a c-section with an extra-large incision. Poorer health outcome for woman and the baby will still die, but that is how they’ll have to do it to be in compliance with Texas law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, the prolifers have pushed out obgyns and pediatricians from hospitals due to the restrictive abortion laws, and the hospital will no longer deliver babies.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/20/idaho-bonner-hospital-baby-delivery-abortion-ban

An Idaho hospital has planned to stop delivering babies, with the medical center’s managers citing increasing criminalization of physicians and the inability to retain pediatricians as major reasons.

Bonner General Health, the only hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, announced on Friday that it would no longer provide labor, delivery and a host of other obstetrical services.

The more than 9,000 residents of Sandpoint are now forced to drive 46 miles for the nearest labor and delivery care, the Idaho Statesman reported.

Will we see more such cases all over these anti-abortion states?

How does this relate? In Virginia, no OBGYN ever would perform an abortion, they would refer you to PP. I don't see why this would have any effect on regular OBGYN practice.

Look, if someone has a super smooth delivery with a very healthy baby, they will probably still be fine, just any routine postpartum medical care will be a bit delayed until you get to a hospital. And any abortion laws won’t affect that particular delivery.

However, for high complication or high risk deliveries, it absolutely matters. All of these anti-abortion bills have penalties that are going to make doctors think twice or ten times about any intervention. There have been a lot of high-profile cases recently where women are 15-20 weeks pregnant and bleeding out or fetuses have lethal anomalies. But unless the woman’s life is in immediate danger (not just risk of hemorrhaging, must be actual active hemorrhaging; not just likely to develop sepsis but actual ongoing sepsis) the doctors’ hands are tied. So far the ones I’ve heard about are people close to large cities in the south with access to maternal care… now compound that for someone living an hour or more away from a maternity hospital who can’t even get to a high risk OB for those assessments. The hospital mentioned in this thread is in sandpoint, so it was likely already the last hospital until the Canadian border. Everyone in that northern panhandle of Idaho is now going to have to trek to coeur d’Alene which could be 100+ miles and who knows how long on winter roads.

Just a few days ago there was an article about a woman in Texas who’s maybe 28 weeks pregnant. The fetus has a lethal anomaly that causes the head to have swollen to the size of a 39 week baby already. Doctors will still not intervene because when the baby dies (as is inevitable), they may be accused of having precipitated that death by inducing so early. By the time the woman is full term, the head will be so oversized they will likely need a c-section with an extra-large incision. Poorer health outcome for woman and the baby will still die, but that is how they’ll have to do it to be in compliance with Texas law.

Any woman who has ever voted forced birther is a rucking moron.