Opinion: I was denied a life-saving abortion at two hospitals. Here’s what I think of the Supreme Court decision

[essentialsaltes]

My daughter was a promise for the future. I named her Maeve, after an Irish warrior queen, because I believed she was going to change the world.

I’d wanted her desperately. When I found out I was pregnant, I was so excited I couldn’t sleep. That first night, my now-husband and I sat together on our back porch in the dark, just taking it all in and thinking about how dramatically our lives would change.

[her water breaks, far too early]

My doctor told me to go straight to the emergency room where they confirmed the worst: There was no chance my daughter would survive, and I was in danger myself. Without emergency intervention to end my pregnancy, I was at risk for infection that could lead to sepsis, infertility or even death.

But the hospital said they couldn’t provide the care I needed to save my life and health.

Ignoring my doctors’ medical advice, the hospital refused to treat me, claiming its hands were tied because of Missouri’s abortion ban. They said there was nothing they could do unless my condition got even worse.

We drove nearly three hours to Kansas, where a doctor initially gave us the option to induce labor to lower my risk of infection and give us a few final minutes with Maeve, so we could hold her and say goodbye.

Then, the doctor came back with a different story. These doctors’ hands, too, were tied because the situation was too politically heated.

[Four days later], we found a clinic in Illinois that was willing to treat me. I’ll always be grateful for the kindness and compassion of the doctors who helped save my life.

Today, the Supreme Court could have provided clarity that EMTALA protects pregnant patients in emergency situations, regardless of state law.

Previous coverage of her story.

 

[comana]

This is what legislating for perceived political gain instead of what truly benefits the populace gets us.

 

[Desk trauma]

Cue “buT ItS nOt aBorTiOn wHeN iTs mEdicAlly NeSSiSary!”

 

[Hammster]

There’s nothing in the Missouri law that prevented her from receiving the care she needed.

 

[comana]

There’s nothing in the Missouri law that prevented her from receiving the care she needed.

Then the law is not clear. Care was withheld because of the Law.

 

[Hammster]

Then the law is not clear. Care was withheld because of the Law.

It’s clear. If she’s telling the truth, they should have treated her.

 

[comana]

It’s clear. If she’s telling the truth, they should have treated her.

It’s clear that vague laws are coming between patients and necessary medical care.

 

[Hammster]

It’s clear that vague laws are coming between patients and necessary medical care.

What’s clear is that the doctors messed up. The law didn’t prevent them from providing care.

 

[comana]

What’s clear is that the doctors messed up. The law didn’t prevent them from providing care.

I would say the legislators messed up.

 

[Hammster]

I would say the legislators messed up.

Okay.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There’s nothing in the Missouri law that prevented her from receiving the care she needed.

A Catholic hospital, even one in Missouri, would have been able to take care of her. They have navigated the moral issues of obstetrics for a long time.

 

[SimplyMe]

It’s clear. If she’s telling the truth, they should have treated her.

What’s clear is that the doctors messed up. The law didn’t prevent them from providing care.

No, that isn't clear at all. Tell me, would you provide a "service" (specifically, some type of "medical treatment") if you weren't entirely sure it would cost you thousands of dollars and a few years in prison (to include becoming a felon for the rest of your life)? You can't blame the doctors for following the advice of their lawyers, who gave their legal opinion that they could be charged with "abortion crimes" under state law because of the way the law was written.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It’s clear. If she’s telling the truth, they should have treated her.

Even if it was an emergency, we literally don't know whether EMTALA trumps the state law. Lawyers for various states have asserted the opposite, and the health community has to consider the possibility the state will prevail.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No, that isn't clear at all. Tell me, would you provide a "service" (specifically, some type of "medical treatment") if you weren't entirely sure it would cost you thousands of dollars and a few years in prison (to include becoming a felon for the rest of your life)? You can't blame the doctors for following the advice of their lawyers, who gave their legal opinion that they could be charged with "abortion crimes" under state law because of the way the law was written.

And the burden of persuading the court that their defense that the abortion was medically necessary falls on the defendant. Basically guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Belk]

There’s nothing in the Missouri law that prevented her from receiving the care she needed.

Do you have legal or medical expertise?

 

[Hammster]

Do you have legal or medical expertise?

No more or less than others who have commented.

 

[Hammster]

No, that isn't clear at all. Tell me, would you provide a "service" (specifically, some type of "medical treatment") if you weren't entirely sure it would cost you thousands of dollars and a few years in prison (to include becoming a felon for the rest of your life)? You can't blame the doctors for following the advice of their lawyers, who gave their legal opinion that they could be charged with "abortion crimes" under state law because of the way the law was written.

I didn’t see in the article where the doctors followed the advice of the lawyers.

 

[Hammster]

Even if it was an emergency, we literally don't know whether EMTALA trumps the state law. Lawyers for various states have asserted the opposite, and the health community has to consider the possibility the state will prevail.

I’m saying that state law (I read it) allows for abortions in emergency situations.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I’m saying that state law (I read it) allows for abortions in emergency situations.

As Ibanezer has pointed out, the doctors have the burden of proof that such a situation existed.

  3. It shall be an affirmative defense for any person alleged to have violated the provisions of subsection 2 of this section that the person performed or induced an abortion because of a medical emergency. The defendant shall have the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

My daughter was a promise for the future. I named her Maeve, after an Irish warrior queen, because I believed she was going to change the world.

I’d wanted her desperately. When I found out I was pregnant, I was so excited I couldn’t sleep. That first night, my now-husband and I sat together on our back porch in the dark, just taking it all in and thinking about how dramatically our lives would change.

[her water breaks, far too early]

My doctor told me to go straight to the emergency room where they confirmed the worst: There was no chance my daughter would survive, and I was in danger myself. Without emergency intervention to end my pregnancy, I was at risk for infection that could lead to sepsis, infertility or even death.

But the hospital said they couldn’t provide the care I needed to save my life and health.

Ignoring my doctors’ medical advice, the hospital refused to treat me, claiming its hands were tied because of Missouri’s abortion ban. They said there was nothing they could do unless my condition got even worse.

We drove nearly three hours to Kansas, where a doctor initially gave us the option to induce labor to lower my risk of infection and give us a few final minutes with Maeve, so we could hold her and say goodbye.

Then, the doctor came back with a different story. These doctors’ hands, too, were tied because the situation was too politically heated.

[Four days later], we found a clinic in Illinois that was willing to treat me. I’ll always be grateful for the kindness and compassion of the doctors who helped save my life.

Today, the Supreme Court could have provided clarity that EMTALA protects pregnant patients in emergency situations, regardless of state law.

Previous coverage of her story.

I know of no place where Abortion is illegal even to save the life of the mother. OTOH, if one does live in such a place and they value that right, they probably should move to a place that does value that right. Heck, that kind of thinking is what caused me to leave Seattle for rural Kentucky 13 years ago. I love it here.

The nice thing about living in a constitutional republic with 50 different countries within it is that if you don't like one's laws, you can move to a different one. Of course, sometimes it doesn't matter. If you think you should be able to kill another person just because they tick you off, you may have a hard time finding, in any of the 50 countries, one that will consider that legal. You might try Washington DC.