Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

[Kenny]

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

Thank you Crossfire...

Let me first share my personal frustration and that being my lack of trust for the media. From CNN to Fox, there has been so much abuse, lies and gaslighing, I just have to approach it with much distrust...

so here goes:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to check her in. "

I have no doubt she miscarried in the lobby restroom. But no explanation as to “why was she refused to check her in”? My granddaughter was refused to be checked in on an appendicitis… but it was because there were no beds available at that time. What is lacking here is “why was she refused."

EDIT: found this:
'
“She is bleeding a lot and had a miscarriage,” the husband told first responders in his call, which was transcribed from Spanish in federal documents. “I’m here at the hospital but they told us they can’t help us because we are not their client.”


It had nothing to do with ’the law” but rather “not my client”.


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.


This one seems to have gaping hole. Since when does a “security guard” decide who goes in and who goes out? There just has to be more to this story. Explanation:

EDITED: In Melbourne, Florida, a security guard at Holmes Regional Medical Center refused to let a pregnant woman into the triage area because she had brought a child with her.

Nothing to do with the law enacted. Makes the AP suspect of promoting an agenda


And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.


Again… this is just weird. No explanation. Did they have the equipment? It didn’t say she wasn’t to come in because of abortion laws but simply “they couldn’t offer it.


Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, federal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.

Here is the clincher. There is absolutely nothing here that any of the above was due to the laws that were enacted. Even the information after didn’t even tie it to the laws or provide any information on these three cases. It then moves to say "It is not known how many complaints were filed last year as the records request only asked for 2022 “ - if they only asked for 2022, how can they say it spiked from 2021 without the figures?

what it did say was:

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.

It is a law that they have to provide services. If they could and didn’t, it is grounds for a lawsuit no matter what the reason.


So this really leaves me wondering if this is a “let’s sell some news and push an agenda effort” - because it really doesn’t give information. I’ve AP presentation and every piece just gives me more questions.

Of course all these women should have been treated and their lives are important but it has nothing to do with “the newly enacted laws”.

 

[Kenny]

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.

The abortion happened in NC and not Georgia. Am i wrong? If I am not wrong, then the Georgia laws had nothing to do with what happened in NC.

 

[Kenny]

Wow can you say blame anybody else including the victim for the consequences of your wish to impose your religion on others.
No doubt many of these women are even Christians being the most common affiliation but then maybe they weren't "true Christians"

Your version of Christian love is disgusting.

Gaslighting.

1) The hospital is at fault.

Your version of interpretation is disgusting. I did put the blame at the number 1 spot. Why did you ignore it? To attack because you have no ability support your position?

 

[Pogo]

Thank you Crossfire...

Let me first share my personal frustration and that being my lack of trust for the media. From CNN to Fox, there has been so much abuse, lies and gaslighing, I just have to approach it with much distrust...

so here goes:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to check her in. "

I have no doubt she miscarried in the lobby restroom. But no explanation as to “why was she refused to check her in”? My granddaughter was refused to be checked in on an appendicitis… but it was because there were no beds available at that time. What is lacking here is “why was she refused."

EDIT: found this:
'
“She is bleeding a lot and had a miscarriage,” the husband told first responders in his call, which was transcribed from Spanish in federal documents. “I’m here at the hospital but they told us they can’t help us because we are not their client.”


It had nothing to do with ’the law” but rather “not my client”.


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.


This one seems to have gaping hole. Since when does a “security guard” decide who goes in and who goes out? There just has to be more to this story. Explanation:

EDITED: In Melbourne, Florida, a security guard at Holmes Regional Medical Center refused to let a pregnant woman into the triage area because she had brought a child with her.

Nothing to do with the law enacted. Makes the AP suspect of promoting an agenda


And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.


Again… this is just weird. No explanation. Did they have the equipment? It didn’t say she wasn’t to come in because of abortion laws but simply “they couldn’t offer it.


Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, federal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.

Here is the clincher. There is absolutely nothing here that any of the above was due to the laws that were enacted. Even the information after didn’t even tie it to the laws or provide any information on these three cases. It then moves to say "It is not known how many complaints were filed last year as the records request only asked for 2022 “ - if they only asked for 2022, how can they say it spiked from 2021 without the figures?

what it did say was:

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.

It is a law that they have to provide services. If they could and didn’t, it is grounds for a lawsuit no matter what the reason.


So this really leaves me wondering if this is a “let’s sell some news and push an agenda effort” - because it really doesn’t give information. I’ve AP presentation and every piece just gives me more questions.

Of course all these women should have been treated and their lives are important but it has nothing to do with “the newly enacted laws”.

I'm sorry but this is just ugly avoidance and victim blaming.

No I am not sorry, this is just ugly.

No version of supposed teachings of the purported Jesus the Christ justifies this attitude to others.

 

[Kenny]

I don't know all of the details of this sad case and have not read all of the posts in this thread. Anyway, wanted to point this out:

"Some news reports blamed pro-life limits on abortion for Thurman’s death, but Georgia state law explicitly allows abortions when the mother’s life or physical health is at risk. Thurman had a chemical abortion in South Carolina prior to her arrival in the emergency room, and when she arrived, her unborn twins had no heart activity."

..,.

Abortion Pills and Medical Negligence Killed Woman, Not Pro-Life Laws, Doctor Says

Abortion pills have four times as many complications as surgical abortions, according to a 2023 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which also found that all pro-life states allow doctors to treat women with pregnancy emergencies according to their medical judgment.

www.ncregister.com

Yes… it is a sad case. Thank you for the update

 

[Kenny]

I'm sorry but this is just ugly avoidance and victim blaming.

No I am not sorry, this is just ugly.

No version of supposed teachings of the purported Jesus the Christ justifies this attitude to others.

The loss of life is always ugly. We are just looking at the facts and realize that it isn’t the “laws” - but the loss of life is always ugly

#153

 

[Pogo]

The abortion happened in NC and not Georgia. Am i wrong? If I am not wrong, then the Georgia laws had nothing to do with what happened in NC.

Yes you are wrong, it was the laws in Georgia that were responsible for the negative outcome.
But you don't care, they're only people, not Christian like you.

 

[Pogo]

Yes… it is a sad case. Thank you for the update

Thoughts and Prayers, The Christian cop out, far easier than addressing the world that your God has wrought.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry but this is just ugly avoidance and victim blaming.

FWIW, I believe the nation-wide assault on reproductive has resulted in a fearful and dangerous landscape for women and the medical system alike. That said, I do not read @Kenny as focused on ugly avoidance and victim blaming.

 

[Pogo]

The loss of life is always ugly. We are just looking at the facts and realize that it isn’t the “laws” - but the loss of life is always ugly

#153

So now you will hide behind the "law" instead of dealing with the cause of it's writing and the resultant ambiguity. Sad is polite.

 

[Pogo]

FWIW, I believe the nation-wide assault on reproductive has resulted in a fearful and dangerous landscape for women and the medical system alike. That said, I do not read @Kenny as focused on ugly avoidance and victim blaming.

No, he is focused on denying the reality of the situation and avoidance and victim blaming are his justifications for his behaviour.

To him, there is no reason for fear in this landscape if nobody fell afoul of it.

 

[Kenny]

FWIW, I believe the nation-wide assault on reproductive has resulted in a fearful and dangerous landscape for women and the medical system alike. That said, I do not read @Kenny as focused on ugly avoidance and victim blaming.

Thank you!

 

[Heyo]

The abortion happened in NC and not Georgia. Am i wrong? If I am not wrong, then the Georgia laws had nothing to do with what happened in NC.

I'm really not sure whether you are unable or unwilling to get the point. It feels like you are insulting my intelligence, but I will grant you Hanlon's Razor and bow out of this conversation.

 

[crossfire]

<...>

Of course all these women should have been treated and their lives are important but it has nothing to do with “the newly enacted laws”.

Alright, you moved the goalposts. My response was to this exchange, which I quoted in my post:

<...>

​

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?

To which I provided real-life examples. Now that you have moved the goalposts to specificically tie it to the laws of the states, I will direct you to Idaho, whose laws have been ping-ponged through the court system, up to the Supreme Court twice, who have since reversed themselves and have kicked it back to the lower courts. This was from the time period where the Supreme Court allowed Idaho's draconian laws to trump EMTALA: Doctors have been advising their patients who are pregnant or who want to become pregnant to get a membership in an emergency medical air-lift program, as the Idaho law will not allow for emergency abortions unless the patient's life is in immediate peril.

Loss of federal protection in Idaho spurs pregnant patients to plan for emergency air transport • Idaho Capital Sun

Some Idaho physicians are advising their pregnant patients to purchase air ambulance memberships with companies like Life Flight Network.

idahocapitalsun.com

​

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in January to consider a case about whether a federal law regarding emergency medical treatment supersedes an abortion ban in Idaho, air transports out of state for pregnancy complications at one of the state’s largest hospitals have increased from one in all of 2023 to six in the past four months.​

​

​

​

St. Luke’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Jim Souza said if that pace continues, that number could be 20 patients before the year is over.​

​

“We have limited resources in terms of helicopters, fixed-wing transports and ambulances. If we occupy an air transport with a patient who could completely receive the totality of her care right here, safely, it’s potentially dangerous for other patients,” Souza said.​

​

Idaho’s abortion ban went into effect in August 2022, a few months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal protection for abortion access and allowing states to regulate it instead.​

​

That rise has prompted some Idaho physicians to advise their pregnant patients, or those trying to become pregnant, to purchase memberships with companies like Life Flight Network or Air St. Luke’s in the Boise area to avoid potentially significant costs if they need air transport in an emergency. With or without private insurance, the cost can be thousands of dollars.​

​

“The thought of this becoming the new normal — I don’t want it to be the new normal,” said Blaine Patterson, director of the Air St. Luke’s program, which reported the recent increase in transports by air.​

​

​

At least these Idaho doctors are warning their patients in advance that they won't be able to get treatment for pregnancy complications that would require an abortion. I hope this is satisfactory evidence for you that some of these state laws are harmful, and criminalize needed care.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the link I posted above.

What is critical reading or applied skepticism to you?

Abortion Pills and Medical Negligence Killed Woman, Not Pro-Life Laws, Doctor Says

Abortion pills have four times as many complications as surgical abortions, according to a 2023 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which also found that all pro-life states allow doctors to treat women with pregnancy emergencies according to their medical judgment.

www.ncregister.com

In the National Catholic Register article you linked I found this:
"Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and a board-certified OB-GYN who has practiced for two decades, said that Thurman’s death “was caused by legal abortion drugs” as well as medical negligence."
"In Francis’ opinion, it was the doctors’ negligence and the abortion-pill complications that killed Thurman — not the state’s pro-life laws, which allow abortions and other lifesaving medical procedures in cases where the woman’s physical health or life is at risk."
Further there is this claim from this source: About Lozier Institute - Lozier Institute
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."

So how do you rate the bias of the article you linked and the relevance of the opinions given?

 

[GoodAttention]

What is critical reading or applied skepticism to you?

Abortion Pills and Medical Negligence Killed Woman, Not Pro-Life Laws, Doctor Says

Abortion pills have four times as many complications as surgical abortions, according to a 2023 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which also found that all pro-life states allow doctors to treat women with pregnancy emergencies according to their medical judgment.

www.ncregister.com

In the National Catholic Register article you linked I found this:
"Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and a board-certified OB-GYN who has practiced for two decades, said that Thurman’s death “was caused by legal abortion drugs” as well as medical negligence."
"In Francis’ opinion, it was the doctors’ negligence and the abortion-pill complications that killed Thurman — not the state’s pro-life laws, which allow abortions and other lifesaving medical procedures in cases where the woman’s physical health or life is at risk."
Further there is this claim from this source: About Lozier Institute - Lozier Institute
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."

So how do you rate the bias of the article you linked and the relevance of the opinions given?

Dr Christina Francis is engaging in double speak for starters, but she is correct.

There is no access to "legal abortion drugs" without medical oversight. She puts the horse before the cart here, which is fair given she is not going to throw her profession under the bus, but it is 100% medical negligence.

The laws have been around long enough for hospitals and medical practitioners to understand what action should be taken and when. The fact that, in this case, they waited 20 hours to intervene whilst Ms Thurman was dying means they delayed their decision making because of either

(a) Incompetence
(b) Negligence

NOT "fear and loathing" of what the laws say. It is the medical professions responsibilty to make the right call.

The real test would be, if the hospital or clinical team did get sued, whether the law would find them negligent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dr Christina Francis is engaging in double speak for starters, but she is correct.

There is no access to "legal abortion drugs" without medical oversight. She puts the horse before the cart here, which is fair given she is not going to throw her profession under the bus, but it is 100% medical negligence.

The laws have been around long enough for hospitals and medical practitioners to understand what action should be taken and when. The fact that, in this case, they waited 20 hours to intervene whilst Ms Thurman was dying means they delayed their decision making because of either

(a) Incompetence
(b) Negligence

NOT "fear and loathing" of what the laws say. It is the medical professions responsibilty to make the right call.

The real test would be, if the hospital or clinical team did get sued, whether the law would find them negligent.

Well, not as I read the 2 articles in question as in combination:

Abortion Pills and Medical Negligence Killed Woman, Not Pro-Life Laws, Doctor Says

Abortion pills have four times as many complications as surgical abortions, according to a 2023 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which also found that all pro-life states allow doctors to treat women with pregnancy emergencies according to their medical judgment.

www.ncregister.com

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.

At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories.

www.propublica.org

To me I am not certain what the legal standing is.
The first article:
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."
The second one:
"It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth."

These 2 quotes are not talking about the same, the first one is not about provoked abortion, the second is.
But that is my opinion.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well, not as I read the 2 articles in question as in combination:

Abortion Pills and Medical Negligence Killed Woman, Not Pro-Life Laws, Doctor Says

Abortion pills have four times as many complications as surgical abortions, according to a 2023 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which also found that all pro-life states allow doctors to treat women with pregnancy emergencies according to their medical judgment.

www.ncregister.com

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.

At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories.

www.propublica.org

To me I am not certain what the legal standing is.
The first article:
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."
The second one:
"It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth."

These 2 quotes are not talking about the same, the first one is not about provoked abortion, the second is.
But that is my opinion.

I have complete faith in the competence of medical practitioners, and whilst mistakes can happen, it is not as if their entire understanding of the human body and what constitutes a medical emergency suddenly goes out the window since the take down of Roe vs Wade.

Medical practitioners are also NOT lawyers or legal experts, BUT for some reason it "appears" like they don't have the support of their hospitals or indemnity providers.

This quote from the second source sums up where their attention is -

"How can they be sure a jury with no medical experience would agree that intervening was “necessary”?

How can they be sure? Understand a jury doesn't define what is a "medical emergency". Get legal advice that reiterates this over and over. Work for a hospital that will support your decisions. Work within a multidisciplinary environment where you can have multiple practitioners defining what is, or isn't, emergency care. Have lawyers on stand-by if needed. Request in-services that will give you more understanding to continue practicing your profession. Make the thousands of dollars you would spend on medical insurance and indemnity work for you.

The law is the law, it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.

IF there is any doubt about how the law affects your practice then, in my opinion, you are not competent to practice safely, and telling your patients to cross state borders to access medical care is a cop-out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

IF there is any doubt about how the law affects your practice then, in my opinion, you are not competent to practice safely, and telling your patients to cross state borders to access medical care is a cop-out.

Yeah, you didn't address the difference in the 2 quotes.
So in effect I am of a different opinion than you.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yeah, you didn't address the difference in the 2 quotes.
So in effect I am of a different opinion than you.

The second quote dances around the "apparent" confusion of an instrument and its purpose, and when a procedure is "not considered an abortion". The source, particularly when applied to Ms Thurman, is flawed since it makes no attempt to address or discuss the details of the law including

(1) LIfe and physical health exemptions for the mother, regardless of the age of the fetus AND
(2) Reasonable medical judgement

This is the case in both Georgia and North Carolina, hence why I support the first source and not the second source you quoted, for the reasons I gave in comment #198.