evidence anti-abortion laws are already endangering women:

[essentialsaltes]

Texas’ abortion restrictions – some of the strictest in the country – may be fueling a sudden spike in infant mortality as women are forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term.

Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 – an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%

“We all knew the infant mortality rate would go up, because many of these terminations were for pregnancies that don’t turn into healthy normal kids,” said Dr. Erika Werner, the chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Tufts Medical Center. “It’s exactly what we all were concerned about.”

The issue of forcing women to carry out terminal and often high-risk pregnancies is at the core of a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, with several women – who suffered difficult pregnancies or infant deaths shortly after giving birth – testifying in Travis County court this week.

Experts say that abortion bans in states like Texas lead to increased risk for both babies and mothers.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Texas’ abortion restrictions – some of the strictest in the country – may be fueling a sudden spike in infant mortality as women are forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term.

Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 – an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%

“We all knew the infant mortality rate would go up, because many of these terminations were for pregnancies that don’t turn into healthy normal kids,” said Dr. Erika Werner, the chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Tufts Medical Center. “It’s exactly what we all were concerned about.”

The issue of forcing women to carry out terminal and often high-risk pregnancies is at the core of a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, with several women – who suffered difficult pregnancies or infant deaths shortly after giving birth – testifying in Travis County court this week.

Experts say that abortion bans in states like Texas lead to increased risk for both babies and mothers.

Why is the question? Why so many deaths? Abortion restrictions seems quite a stretch for that increase.

 

[Goonie]

Why is the question? Why so many deaths? Abortion restrictions seems quite a stretch for that increase.

Not really. Before the restrictions the non viable fetuses would have been aborted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why is the question? Why so many deaths? Abortion restrictions seems quite a stretch for that increase.

As Goonie points out, the reason is quite simple. FTA:

“We all knew the infant mortality rate would go up, because many of these terminations were for pregnancies that don’t turn into healthy normal kids”

Some of these pregnancies were doomed. If brought to term, the infant was never going to live more than a few hours. Previously, many women would have chosen to abort these fetuses, but the law and/or fear of the law is preventing that choice, so that women have to take on additional risk to carry these doomed fetuses to term.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Not really. Before the restrictions the non viable fetuses would have been aborted.

No. NOT all of them and no laws restrict NON-viable fetuses. That's already established in law and medicine. There is some pretense that "we don't know if we can do that" when they know full well that they can indeed remove a dead fetus or one that will not live. Ask your attorneys, doctors.

 

[Goonie]

No. NOT all of them and no laws restrict NON-viable fetuses. That's already established in law and medicine. There is some pretense that "we don't know if we can do that" when they know full well that they can indeed remove a dead fetus or one that will not live. Ask your attorneys, doctors.

They did and the attorneys told them not to risk being sued/prosecuted. So non pregnancies are carried to term where previously they were aborted.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

They did and the attorneys told them not to risk being sued/prosecuted. So non pregnancies are carried to term where previously they were aborted.

That was unnecessary and wrong. They chose risk averse behavior (which is what attorneys will recommend even if something can be done- which this could) OVER helping their patient.

That was a choice in every instance.
Here you go: brief summary of law in every state. Yes, abortion is always permissible and even is standard when fetus is not viable.

Know Your Rights With This List of Abortion Laws by State

The Supreme Court officially overturned Roe v. Wade, giving states the right to set their own abortion laws. These are the states where abortion is legal—and the states where abortion is restricted.

www.parents.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

That was unnecessary and wrong. They chose risk averse behavior (which is what attorneys will recommend even if something can be done- which this could) OVER helping their patient.

The politicians could have written the law with more clarity about what counted as medically necessary. But speaking of choice, they chose not to. And in this ambiguous environment, as you say... risk averse lawyers are avoiding risk.

Regardless, your original question of 'Why' has a clear answer. These new anti-abortion laws.

 

[Goonie]

That was unnecessary and wrong. They chose risk averse behavior (which is what attorneys will recommend even if something can be done- which this could) OVER helping their patient.

That was a choice in every instance.
Here you go: brief summary of law in every state. Yes, abortion is always permissible and even is standard when fetus is not viable.

Know Your Rights With This List of Abortion Laws by State

The Supreme Court officially overturned Roe v. Wade, giving states the right to set their own abortion laws. These are the states where abortion is legal—and the states where abortion is restricted.

www.parents.com

Sorry but from what i understand in texas unless the doctors are absolutely convinced the pregnancy threatened to kill the mother it is illegal to abort a non viable fetus. So inevitably the infant death rate will increase.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The politicians could have written the law with more clarity about what counted as medically necessary. But speaking of choice, they chose not to. And in this ambiguous environment, as you say... risk averse lawyers are avoiding risk.

Regardless, your original question of 'Why' has a clear answer. These new anti-abortion laws.

Sure, the laws could be written more clearly. No doubt. That is why many are challenged. But a doctor doesn't throw his patient under the bus because the law COULD be construed against him, out of fear. Remember, in law, when there is ambiguity, it is construed against the drafter.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Sorry but from what i understand in texas unless the doctors are absolutely convinced the pregnancy threatened to kill the mother it is illegal to abort a non viable fetus. So inevitably the infant death rate will increase.

It is most decidedly NOT illegal to abort a NON-viable fetus in any state. The medical professional's judgment takes precedence over the wording of the law, where there is ambiguity or question.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

The ten year old girl that had to travel to Indiana is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of women and girls that are being harmed by overturning Roe vs. Wade.

This is an issue, but the issue is in the origin of how whoever got her pregnant is at fault. And these outlier cases of people who are too young to be pregnant are not the majority. The majority is the issue of people who don't want to be responsible and have a child, people that should be having babies are 18+ adults who are married. That being said, instead of pointing the finger at how flawed society is that a 10 year old is even pregnant let's just get mad we can't kill the baby. People want to find one situation where abortion is ok so they can justify abortion in all cases. There is a verse where "Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes." Ecclesiastes 7:18

We should get at the root issue. People should never be in a situation where a child gets pregnant. Period. If we lived in a perfect world and a better society none of this would happen to begin with. But if it does happen this is clearly an issue that should be discussed and prayed about. Should we kill an unborn child to help a pregnant child? Should we put the baby up for adoption? Frankly i don't know and i'm too angry that this case is just being used to push a political agenda to answer. This would fall under the category of an extreme but whatever the decision for such extreme it should not then justify the killing of all babies solely because a child got pregnant. The person responsible for the child being pregnant should be held responsible and punished accordingly.

This is just an attempt of someone to take an extreme case and then justify all abortions, or make a law that is meant to keep unborn children alive and make it look like it's at fault.

Very sad to use such a situation as amo for some pilitical agenda rather than just try and figure out a valid solution.

Sad. Very Sad.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, the laws could be written more clearly. No doubt. That is why many are challenged. But a doctor doesn't throw his patient under the bus because the law COULD be construed against him, out of fear. Remember, in law, when there is ambiguity, it is construed against the drafter.

They could have, but the didn't. (And there are multiple possible reasons why.)

They *could* have make the attending physicians determination of medical necessity to be presumed correct unless there was positive evidence to the contrary that the physician knew they were wrong, but they didn't

The *could* have put the matter in the binding opinion (prior to procedure) of the local medical ethics board, but they did not.


Why? It could be incompetence, haste, use of trigger laws crafted when the possibility of activation seemed slim, or malice.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

They could have, but the didn't. (And there are multiple possible reasons why.)

They *could* have make the attending physicians determination of medical necessity to be presumed correct unless there was positive evidence to the contrary that the physician knew they were wrong, but they didn't

The *could* have put the matter in the binding opinion (prior to procedure) of the local medical ethics board, but they did not.


Why? It could be incompetence, haste, use of trigger laws crafted when the possibility of activation seemed slim, or malice.

True...it could be one of those reasons, or it could also be a mere lack of anticipation of doctors failing to act either in fear of potential litigation, or in furtherance of a political agenda.

 

[Hans Blaster]

True...it could be one of those reasons, or it could also be a mere lack of anticipation of doctors failing to act either in fear of potential litigation, or in furtherance of a political agenda.

If you follow the reporting it is clear that the doctors consult with hospital/clinic management and then with the lawyers and no one can be certain that doing the proper medical thing won't get the doctor arrested and have the hospital/clinic face huge fines. Call it the cowardice of management, but it was not a situation management created.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If you follow the reporting it is clear that the doctors consult with hospital/clinic management and then with the lawyers and no one can be certain that doing the proper medical thing won't get the doctor arrested and have the hospital/clinic face huge fines. Call it the cowardice of management, but it was not a situation management created.

That's nonsense. The doctor is permitted to save a life, hard stop. Leaving a dead baby in mom is very dangerous. Any doctor who would let the patient just go ahead and die because some attorney says, "Well you MIGHT get charged because people don't understand the law." is not a doctor worth having.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's nonsense. The doctor is permitted to save a life, hard stop. Leaving a dead baby in mom is very dangerous. Any doctor who would let the patient just go ahead and die because some attorney says, "Well you MIGHT get charged because people don't understand the law." is not a doctor worth having.

It's not about understanding the law, it's about law that is ambiguous or even written against the doctor having discretion. This seems more like a case of lawmakers not worth having.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It's not about understanding the law, it's about law that is ambiguous or even written against the doctor having discretion. This seems more like a case of lawmakers not worth having.

Both, perhaps. But the doctor has taken the oath and has the duty here to "first do no harm".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Both, perhaps. But the doctor has taken the oath and has the duty here to "first do no harm".

That oath isn't a license to break the law.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That oath isn't a license to break the law.

There isn't a law to break on saving a life. That is is primary duty. All else is simply legal arguments.