Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

[Jayhawker Soule]

So this is really about pushing an agenda with false information.

Is it not also about the following?

AAPLOG maintains that the reading of Georgia’s anti-abortion statute does not prohibit performing a D&C in the case of abortion pill complications or miscarriage complications.​

​

“Amber Thurman’s state of Georgia clearly allows physicians to intervene in medical emergencies or when there is no detectable fetal heartbeat, both of which applied to her,” said Dr. Christina Francis, AAPLOG CEO, in a statement. “Don’t be misled by those who advocate for induced abortion over the health and safety of women.”​

​

Pro-abortion legal scholars argue, however, that the statutory definitions of abortion post-Dobbs have been difficult for doctors to navigate even two years after the decision came down, let alone within weeks of the landmark Supreme Court decision.​

​

Although Thurman is the first known death due to failure to treat abortion complications in the post-Dobbs era, dozens of women in several states with gestational age limits on abortion report being turned away from receiving care when faced with pregnancy-related emergencies. [ibid]​

​

​

 

[QuestioningMind]

Honestly I can't understand how she could afford abortion pills, but couldn't afford a package of Yasminelle.
Hormonal pills.

This really shocks me. We all take hormonal pills... and despite some side effect, we are alive.

I am sorry...but I cannot empathize. Birth control is infinitely much cheaper than abortion pills.

Please share your inside source that indicates she wasn't on birth control. You are aware that it's not 100% effective, right? My wife was on the pill when she had our second child.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But if abortion is a local matter, why blaming the Federal Government?
I can't understand this.

Of course it's horrific, and these states should change their laws immediately.

Because up until a short while ago it wasn't a local matter. It was a nationally protected right. But then the FEDERAL Supreme Court invalidated those protections. It's really not that complicated.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But she did know that in her state there was a medieval law outlawing abortion...
so...a little bit of prevention...?

We're still waiting for your special inside source that indicates she WASN'T on the pill?

 

[Pogo]

We're still waiting for your special inside source that indicates she WASN'T on the pill?

She claims to be an avocado, similar in truthiness to a lawyer, so careful with her goods.

 

[Kenny]

Kenny, that you don't agree with everything stated is the problem. You might even be right, but you are not the people trying to deal with these new laws and that is the problem.

Understand. But I am just going the the opening OP which was a false narrative. I’m not addressing the nuances of particular laws. Obviously I am for circumstance that require the extraction of the baby. Example: an baby that attaches to a fallopian tube where both lives can be lost, a decision must be made to save the mother.

But this OP isn’t about that.

Or you might also not be as knowledgeable as you think you are.
It might have been legal if she was there for a miscarriage, but that was not why she presented.
AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab


A dilation and curettage (D&C) is a surgical procedure that can be used for an abortion or to treat other uterine conditions:

OK…

• Abortion
  A D&C is a common and safe way to end an early pregnancy. It involves removing the pregnancy tissue and sometimes scraping the uterine lining. A D&C can be a more effective option than a medical abortion for controlling bleeding and pain.

ok

• 
  
  
• Other uterine conditions
  A D&C can be used to treat heavy bleeding or to clear the uterine lining after a miscarriage.
  
  

ok

my point is simply that the OP is misleading and is a gaslighting effort to promote an agenda which, in this case, is to say that it was the law that caused it when it didn’t.

 

[Kenny]

Is it not also about the following?

AAPLOG maintains that the reading of Georgia’s anti-abortion statute does not prohibit performing a D&C in the case of abortion pill complications or miscarriage complications.​

​

“Amber Thurman’s state of Georgia clearly allows physicians to intervene in medical emergencies or when there is no detectable fetal heartbeat, both of which applied to her,” said Dr. Christina Francis, AAPLOG CEO, in a statement. “Don’t be misled by those who advocate for induced abortion over the health and safety of women.”​

Thank you.

​

Pro-abortion legal scholars argue, however, that the statutory definitions of abortion post-Dobbs have been difficult for doctors to navigate even two years after the decision came down, let alone within weeks of the landmark Supreme Court decision.​

Yes… but is this really the case? I don’t know. We have “abortionists” saying it is difficult… but why? Can I have an example? If there was a pro-live law that said “20 week viable baby and every effort should be made to save it” - the pro-abortionists would also argue the case.

​

Although Thurman is the first known death due to failure to treat abortion complications in the post-Dobbs era, dozens of women in several states with gestational age limits on abortion report being turned away from receiving care when faced with pregnancy-related emergencies. [ibid]​

​

​

OK… can I have a real-life example?

 

[Heyo]

OK… can I have a real-life example?

Amber Nicole Thurman is the real life example.
A new law is made that frightens physicians with a ten-year prison sentence. The wording has been unclear to the doctors involved. (it doesn't matter that we think it is clear - it wasn't clear to them), and while they try to find out what is still legal, their patient dies.
We could file that as a tragic misunderstanding that happened because the law was new, or we could blame the clinic for not providing clear directions for such cases in time, or the doctors for malpractice. But that doesn't take into account that the lawmakers 1. have been warned that that could happen, and 2. have not reacted to the case with a clarification. This can't be equally explained with incompetence of the lawmakers, it seems more likely that it was and is deliberate.

 

[crossfire]

Thank you.


Yes… but is this really the case? I don’t know. We have “abortionists” saying it is difficult… but why? Can I have an example? If there was a pro-live law that said “20 week viable baby and every effort should be made to save it” - the pro-abortionists would also argue the case.


OK… can I have a real-life example?

I hope the Associated Press is an acceptable source for you regarding real life examples of pregnant women in crisis being turned away from hospital emergency rooms.

Emergency rooms refused to treat pregnant women, leaving one to miscarry in a lobby restroom

Complaints about pregnant women being turned away from emergency rooms spiked in the months after states began enacting strict abortion laws following the 2022 U.S.

apnews.com

 

[anotherneil]

Stances on abortion are very much driven by religion,
yours being an exception to what's most common.
Christian fundamentalism is the main driver, & so
their imposition of their interpretation of the Bible
drives opposition to abortion.

One could also claim that stances on murder and stealing are very much driven by religion & that their imposition of their interpretation of the Bible drives opposition to murder and stealing, with Christian fundamentalism being the main driver. Should we throw out laws that make murder and stealing illegal?

To me it has to do with the question of the existence of a victim in a situation. Either all human beings have a right to not be victimized, or we have a problem in society like anarchy or the type of problem that exists when slavery is legal and slaves are considered property rather than human beings with a right to not be victimized.

 

[Kenny]

Amber Nicole Thurman is the real life example.
A new law is made that frightens physicians with a ten-year prison sentence. The wording has been unclear to the doctors involved. (it doesn't matter that we think it is clear - it wasn't clear to them), and while they try to find out what is still legal, their patient dies.
We could file that as a tragic misunderstanding that happened because the law was new, or we could blame the clinic for not providing clear directions for such cases in time, or the doctors for malpractice. But that doesn't take into account that the lawmakers 1. have been warned that that could happen, and 2. have not reacted to the case with a clarification. This can't be equally explained with incompetence of the lawmakers, it seems more likely that it was and is deliberate.

No… Amber had fetal tissue, the aftermath of an abortion in another state.

1) The hospital is at fault
2) She should have had a different type of abortion
3) If she did have the one she did have, she should have had a D&C

 

[crossfire]

No… Amber had fetal tissue, the aftermath of an abortion in another state.

1) The hospital is at fault

Indeed, Georgia's maternal mortality review board concluded that her death could have been prevented.

2) She should have had a different type of abortion
3) If she did have the one she did have, she should have had a D&C

Her intention was to have a D&C at a clinic in North Carolina. That didn't work out due to traffic and the clinic being overloaded with out-of- state patients.
from the article:

​

Thurman wanted a surgical abortion close to home and held out hope as advocates tried to get the ban paused in court, Baker said. But as her pregnancy progressed to its ninth week, she couldn’t wait any longer. She scheduled a D&C in North Carolina, where abortion at that stage was still legal, and on Aug. 13 woke up at 4 a.m. to make the journey with her best friend.​

​

​

On their drive, they hit standstill traffic, Baker said. The clinic couldn’t hold Thurman’s spot longer than 15 minutes — it was inundated with women from other states where bans had taken effect. Instead, a clinic employee offered Thurman a two-pill abortion regimen approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, mifepristone and misoprostol. Her pregnancy was well within the standard of care for that treatment.​

​

​

Getting to the clinic had required scheduling a day off from work, finding a babysitter, making up an excuse to borrow a relative’s car and walking through a crowd of anti-abortion protesters. Thurman didn’t want to reschedule, Baker said.​

 

[crossfire]

One could also claim that stances on murder and stealing are very much driven by religion & that their imposition of their interpretation of the Bible drives opposition to murder and stealing, with Christian fundamentalism being the main driver. Should we throw out laws that make murder and stealing illegal?

To me it has to do with the question of the existence of a victim in a situation. Either all human beings have a right to not be victimized, or we have a problem in society like anarchy or the type of problem that exists when slavery is legal and slaves are considered property rather than human beings with a right to not be victimized.

Many would argue that forced birth is slavery.

 

[Wirey]

One could also claim that stances on murder and stealing are very much driven by religion & that their imposition of their interpretation of the Bible drives opposition to murder and stealing, with Christian fundamentalism being the main driver. Should we throw out laws that make murder and stealing illegal?

Humans had laws prohibiting murder and stealing a long time before the Jebus Gang showed up. Nice try though.

Cyrus the Great introduced laws against murder and stealing. Should we outlaw all religions except Zoroastrianism so we can get back to the days where there were no murders?

 

[anotherneil]

Many would argue that forced birth is slavery.

Yes, I am aware of this; that's a way of describing why there's a controversy with this issue to begin with.

If we reproduced the way that fish did, by simply expelling sperm and eggs close to each other in the water, it wouldn't be a controversial issue.

Anyhow, I have an opposition to abortion, but it's somewhat limited. On one hand, I don't think that a pregnant woman should be forced to carry an unborn child to term. As a libertarian, I think a pregnant woman ought to have the right to consume what she wants, including something that induces miscarriages. Where I have an issue with abortion is this extra step that's involved in an abortion procedure that involves ripping up a fetus like a piece of paper.

I'm not hardcore pro-life like those who are religiously and adamantly opposed to abortion. My thought process about this issue is that if such hardcore pro-lifers want to save the lives of unborn babies, one thing they could do is put effort into developing synthetic wombs for incubating and providing nutrients to a fetus from pregnant women who want to terminate their pregnancies prematurely (from gestation period), or medical procedures for transferring a fetus to a surrogate mother's womb, or something along these lines.

 

[anotherneil]

Humans had laws prohibiting murder and stealing a long time before the Jebus Gang showed up. Nice try though.

Actually the issue is Roe v Wade taking away constitutional states rights, then being reversed.

Cyrus the Great introduced laws against murder and stealing. Should we outlaw all religions except Zoroastrianism so we can get back to the days where there were no murders?

Your question is confusing and perplexing, and I'm not sure what point you're driving at.

I'm not religious, and I'm a proponent for preserving the 1st 2 clauses of the 1st Amendment in the US Constitution. I don't think religion should be mandated, and I don't think it should be banned, either. As long as no one's being victimized by religion, I think people should be free to do whatever religious stuff they want.

My point is that this argument that opposition to abortion is religious is just as valid as an argument that opposition to murder and stealing is religious.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, I am aware of this; that's a way of describing why there's a controversy with this issue to begin with.

If we reproduced the way that fish did, by simply expelling sperm and eggs close to each other in the water, it wouldn't be a controversial issue.

We would have a different problem of human trafficking by way of trading in these "eggs." The individuals of this new class of slaves would never be missed, as they had no family to begin with.

Anyhow, I have an opposition to abortion, but it's somewhat limited. On one hand, I don't think that a pregnant woman should be forced to carry an unborn child to term. As a libertarian, I think a pregnant woman ought to have the right to consume what she wants, including something that induces miscarriages. Where I have an issue with abortion is this extra step that's involved in an abortion procedure that involves ripping up a fetus like a piece of paper.

I'm not hardcore pro-life like those who are religiously and adamantly opposed to abortion. My thought process about this issue is that if such hardcore pro-lifers want to save the lives of unborn babies, one thing they could do is put effort into developing synthetic wombs for incubating and providing nutrients to a fetus from pregnant women who want to terminate their pregnancies prematurely (from gestation period), or medical procedures for transferring a fetus to a surrogate mother's womb, or something along these lines.

You would probably have a greater chance of developing the ability of humans to lay eggs than you would have for developing technology to transfer a fetus from its host. (Messing with the placental interface means almost certain death for the fetus.) The egg laying technology would have to be installed before conception, or be a synthetic womb outside of the body implanted via IVF.

Neither of these would solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[F1fan]

In Europe there are mothers who force their teenage girls to take the pill.
By the time they are 25, their ovaries are dried up.

Another derailed thread with your odd right wing idealism that isn't relevant to the discussion. Why do you keep doing this?

 

[Heyo]

No… Amber had fetal tissue, the aftermath of an abortion in another state.

1) The hospital is at fault
2) She should have had a different type of abortion

She wanted, but couldn't (as described in the article, just cited by @crossfire).
The circumstances that lead to her not being able to get a proper abortion are the result of the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the laws introduced in her state.

3) If she did have the one she did have, she should have had a D&C

We agree on that .

But you didn't even mention the main point (which is telling in its own way).
You don't even consider the role the legislature of Georgia played in this. No comment on them still refusing to clarify the law.

 

[Estro Felino]

Another derailed thread with your odd right wing idealism that isn't relevant to the discussion. Why do you keep doing this?

To be able to speak of abortion, one has to speak of sex too.
Otherwise the political debate sounds like these women get pregnant by the virtue of the Holy Spirit.