Anti-abortion laws cause ID hospital to stop delivering babies

[Anonymous]

^ PP again. Adding: do not think for a minute this is an unintended consequence or some kind of oversight. Texas Right to Life, which advocates for these laws says they want babies to be "honored and protected in law no matter how long or short their lives may be.” They believe the fetus inside has the right to stay in that womb until it’s full term/comes out naturally, and then God decides how long they live outside the womb. They absolutely do not care if the woman suffers or even if the baby suffers more than necessary because that is just “God’s will.”

[Anonymous]

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

A better solution is to force vasectomies. 99% of children will be wanted.

[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.

LOL. The PP doctors are OB-GYN doctors licensed by the commonwealth of Virginia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ PP again. Adding: do not think for a minute this is an unintended consequence or some kind of oversight. Texas Right to Life, which advocates for these laws says they want babies to be "honored and protected in law no matter how long or short their lives may be.” They believe the fetus inside has the right to stay in that womb until it’s full term/comes out naturally, and then God decides how long they live outside the womb. They absolutely do not care if the woman suffers or even if the baby suffers more than necessary because that is just “God’s will.”

+1. You absolutely cannot expect humanity from these people. They are rabid freaks who will not hesitate to kill in the name of their God. Not surprisingly, “God’s will” doesn’t apply when they get sick or their kids get cancer. Then they hog every resource they can, like the greedy pigs they are.

I used to be a live and let live person, but the only way women are going to live is if we root them out of civil life. Reasonable people never win against the fanatics and fundamentalists.

[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.

You think there will be introspection? They'll find a way to blame democrats. Two or three years from now, it will be common knowledge that the delivery department closed because of regulation and trial lawyers and insurance companies

Bookmarking this because it’s 💯 true!

[Anonymous]

Did a substantial percentage of women in these states vote for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

A better solution is to force vasectomies. 99% of children will be wanted.

Simple and easy would be a highly effective male form of birth control.

[Anonymous]

Some of these laws are a century+ old.

I don’t know about ID specifically, but it is heartening to see that states like Kansas have actually voted in favor of reproductive rights since the Dobbs decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did a substantial percentage of women in these states vote for this?

Not sure about Idaho but Wisconsin’s ban is from 1849, so no women voted for that one.

[Anonymous]

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

It's 46 miles to the next nearest hospital from the one that closed. That doesn't take into account how far one lives from the closed hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's 46 miles to the next nearest hospital from the one that closed. That doesn't take into account how far one lives from the closed hospital.

The point is...this will happen at other hospitals obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This article is full of horrifying stories. This is the reality that anti-abortionists want. It's disgusting.

In one case, she said a patient came to the hospital with a premature rupture of membranes, then found out the fetus had a severe anomaly that it likely would not survive. Generally, when a patient’s water breaks early and they are close to viability, they may be given antibiotics to try to prolong the pregnancy, Guan said. “This patient told us she wanted to decline the antibiotics so she could get sick enough so that we would offer her an abortion. And eventually she did get infected, and was delivered for that reason.”

[Anonymous]

The other thing is that residents in states with abortion bans are not going to learn the standard of care for emergency pregnancy situations. So those residents will not get hired in states that do allow the full range of maternal care. So why would a resident want to do residency in such a state?

[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?

I guess The Guardian is a credible source when liberals cite it, but not when conservatives do? Good to know.

Here ya go -- the article of the SAME SUBJECT from the Idaho Statesmen, with the headline -- wait for it --

"ID Hospital to Stop Delivering Babies. One reason? ‘Bills that criminalize physicians’"

https://www.idahostatesman.com/living/health-fitness/article273303190.html#storylink=topdigest_latest

[Anonymous]

Same state is also getting rid of its maternal mortality review
board, probably because it’s going to be awkward to find a cause of death “woman died of preventable sepsis because our laws are archaic”

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/02/20/a-law-meant-to-save-lives-of-idaho-mothers-is-on-the-chopping-block-will-lawmakers-keep-it/