Florida Republican Says Abortion Law Fear Delayed Her Care for Ectopic Pregnancy

[NxNW]

I’d like to see an in depth story before I believe that republicans are forcing women to wait till death’s door before allowing treatment. Or even another story where that is true, because it sounds like fearmongering to me.

There was another example discussed at length on the forums a few months ago, in which doctors were forced to wait until the situation was dire.
See below for links.

ETA: It seems the woman in the article agrees with me that it is the extreme fearmongering by abortion rights activists that are causing the problems.

She's a Republican, trying to blame Democrats for Republican laws.

 

[NxNW]

And as a trained first responder I can assure you that there is no such thing as an ectopic pregnancy that isn't a true medical emergency.

It's less of an emergency if the actual danger is weeks away. Republican laws are forcing the doctors to wait until the situation is dire.

Here are two examples from last year.

Texas women denied abortions for ectopic pregnancies demand federal investigation | Abortion | The Guardian https://share.google/JiNW07NUYk7uJquQN

One of the complaints details how Kyleigh Thurman, a 25-year-old woman from Burnet, Texas, was turned away at Ascension Williamson hospital in February, even though her OB-GYN told the hospital she probably had an ectopic pregnancy.

Days later, she returned, bleeding and in severe pain, but only received treatment after her OB-GYN traveled to the hospital “to plead with the medical staff” to terminate Thurman’s ectopic pregnancy.

However, the delay caused her ectopic pregnancy to rupture. Thurman nearly bled to death and was forced into emergency surgery to remove her fallopian tube. Her ability to have children is now compromised.

According to the second complaint, Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz experienced a similar harrowing ordeal at Texas Health Arlington Memorial hospital, outside Dallas. By the time she received treatment, her pregnancy was near rupture. Norris-De La Cruz lost a fallopian tube and most of her right ovary.

Here is another, not ectopic, but still an emergency:

Texas woman died after being denied miscarriage care due to abortion ban, report finds

Barnica went to the hospital with cramps when she was just over 17 weeks pregnant on 2 September 2021, the day after the Texas six-week abortion ban took effect, according to ProPublica. (Texas enacted the ban almost a year before Roe was overturned; it now bans abortion from conception.) When her bleeding worsened the following day, Barnica returned to the hospital, where a doctor concluded that a miscarriage was “in progress”. Another soon concluded that a miscarriage was “inevitable”.

But Barnica’s fetus still had a heartbeat. And under the Texas ban, doctors could not intervene unless a “medical emergency” – a term that was not defined in the law – developed. About 40 hours after Barnica’s second arrival at the hospital, doctors stopped being able to detect a fetal heartbeat, according to the report. A doctor expedited her labor using medications and delivered Barnica’s fetus. But after she returned home, Barnica’s bleeding continued and worsened.

Within days, she was back at the hospital, where she died of sepsis involving “products of conception”, according to her autopsy report. Her widowed husband is now raising their four-year-old daughter, ProPublica reported.

Texas women denied abortions ask court for clarity over ban exceptions​

Texas doctors who perform abortions risk life in prison and fines of up to $100,000, leaving many women with providers who are unwilling to even discuss terminating a pregnancy.

“Even if they provide an abortion that they believe complies with the bans’ narrow exceptions, they still risk the laws being enforced against them,” the plaintiffs argued in court filings this month.

Sixteen states, including Texas, do not allow abortions when a fatal fetal anomaly is detected, while six do not allow exceptions for the mother’s health, according to an analysis by KFF, a health research organization.

Idaho abortion trial to hear from women denied medically necessary abortions​

Women denied medically necessary abortions in Idaho are expected to testify this week in a trial over the state’s near-total abortion ban.

The trial, which starts on Tuesday and is expected to last through at least Thursday, is part of a lawsuit filed by abortion rights supporters who want to clarify the medical exceptions in Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. Currently, abortions are only permitted in Idaho to preserve a patient’s health. The vagueness of the exception means women have been forced to go out of state for the procedure, or wait until they get sick enough that doctors can legally intervene.

Plenty of examples of the things you claim aren't happening.

 

[ralliann]

I’m pretty sure the law applies to elective abortions, not medical emergencies. Doctors have always had the right to treat medical emergencies, and they finally did in this case, as they should have all along. The fearmongering of the left is what kept them from doing it earlier when she first went for treatment. This is what happens when lies are spread, she could have died had she been refused treatment for too long.

Well you would think doctors would know the law on this. Especially here. baby's can't last long growing outside of the womb.

 

[A New Dawn]

Well you would think doctors would know the law on this. Especially here. baby's can't last long growing outside of the womb.

I think it was more the attorneys who were double-checking the law since the abortion rights activists were activisting and causing trouble.

 

[A New Dawn]

There was another example discussed at length on the forums a few months ago, in which doctors were forced to wait until the situation was dire.
See below for links.

She's a Republican, trying to blame Democrats for Republican laws.

It wasn’t the law that was the problem, it was the abortion rights activists causing problems. That’s all activists do, is cause problems

 

[chilehed]

So, what’s the controversy?

Beats me. It's a perfectly sensible law that some people, for some twisted reason, are so freaked out over that they have to make up hyperventilated nonsense about it.

 

[chilehed]

It's less of an emergency if the actual danger is weeks away. Republican laws are forcing the doctors to wait until the situation is dire.

Nonsense. It's patently obvious that there's absolutely nothing in the law that requires that.

 

[Belk]

Nonsense. It's patently obvious that there's absolutely nothing in the law that requires that.

Beats me. It's a perfectly sensible law that some people, for some twisted reason, are so freaked out over that they have to make up hyperventilated nonsense about it.

Are you a medical lawyer?

 

[chilehed]

Are you a medical lawyer?

Read. The. Law.

 

[Belk]

Read. The. Law.

Are. YOU. a. medical. Lawyer?

 

[A New Dawn]

Are. YOU. a. medical. Lawyer?

So are you suggesting that the abortion activists are lawyers?

 

[Belk]

So are you suggesting that the abortion activists are lawyers?

 

[A New Dawn]

View attachment 367289

I’m not sure why you are confused. You don’t question why the abortion rights activists are causing trouble but suggest that anyone who is level-headed and disagrees with their take on things has to be a lawyer for their objection to count.

 

[Belk]

I’m not sure why you are confused. You don’t question why the abortion rights activists are causing trouble but suggest that anyone who is level-headed and disagrees with their take on things has to be a lawyer for their objection to count.

Take your bizarre assertions elsewhere. I feel no need to entertain them.

 

[A New Dawn]

Take your bizarre assertions elsewhere. I feel no need to entertain them.

If my bizarre assertions weren’t supported by your own assertions I wouldn’t make them. So if it IS a bizarre assertion on my end, why is it necessary that someone who has read the law and commented here be a lawyer? And why would you take the word of abortion rights activists at face value?

 

[Belk]

If my bizarre assertions weren’t supported by your own assertions I wouldn’t make them. So if it IS a bizarre assertion on my end, why is it necessary that someone who has read the law and commented here be a lawyer? And why would you take the word of abortion rights activists at face value?

 

[A New Dawn]

View attachment 367295

So no reasonable response. Got it.

 

[Belk]

So no reasonable response. Got it.

 

[A New Dawn]

View attachment 367298

Why do you even participate in discussions when you refuse to discuss?

 

[Belk]

Why do you even participate in discussions when you refuse to discuss?

I'm happy to discuss things with people who wish to have a reasonable discussion.