An analysis from The Associated Press demonstrates that, since 2022, there have been more than 100 instances where pregnant people in medical distress, who sought help from hospitals and emergency rooms across the country, were turned away from treatment or treated negligently.
The year the analysis starts from is significant, as the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the middle of 2022, ending federal abortion rights protections that had been in place for nearly half a century. Most of the life-threatening situations within the analysis could have been solved by providing a person with an abortion, rather than subjecting them to harrowing conditions.
The figure is possibly higher than 100 individuals detrimentally affected, as the analysis only includes documented cases of negligence and refusal of service for dozens of people — many more unreported instances could very well exist.
According to the analysis, people who were experiencing complications with their pregnancies suffered life-threatening issues, such as going into septic shock after their fetus had died or after being refused treatment for ectopic pregnancies by their physicians. The analysis also documented instances where pregnant people were forced to miscarry in public restrooms rather than under the supervision of medical professionals.
The patients “were turned away or sent home while in active labor, bleeding or leaking amniotic fluid,” said Amanda Seitz, the author of The Associated Press article that detailed the analysis.
The analysis noted that states with anti-abortion laws weren’t the only ones with questionable records. One documented case occurred in California, a state that purports to be an abortion sanctuary, when a pregnant woman required a blood transfusion after waiting for several hours in the ER to be treated for her ectopic pregnancy.
The Biden administration has issued guidance that requires federally funded hospitals to provide an abortion when it is required to save a person’s life. However, doctors and physicians in several states are reluctant to do so due to fears of being prosecuted by state agencies under vague laws that do not define what a life-saving situation is. Texas is also challenging that federal guideline.
Abortion rights advocates believe that these states’ physicians need to be more proactive in determining who is eligible for an abortion under these standards.
“As fearful as hospitals and doctors are of running afoul of these state abortion bans, they also need to be concerned about running afoul of federal law,” said Marc Hearron, attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Strict abortion bans, such as those in Texas, harm pregnant people, including those who want to give birth because the exceptions to the bans, which in theory give consideration to people who face life-threatening situations, are so vague that doctors don’t dare test the waters for fear of prosecution. These exceptions are so vague, they are “virtually meaningless,” said Sonia Suter, a law professor at Washington University, speaking to openDemocracy about the issue earlier this year.
“What’s the magnitude of the risk that the law requires? What’s the probability of harm? How imminent must it be?” Suter questioned, adding:
The vagueness of these laws is a feature, not a bug. The vague exceptions allow a layperson to say ‘oh, the state cares about women’. But the state doesn’t care.
Join us in defending the truth before it’s too late
The future of journalism is uncertain, and the consequences of losing it are too grave to ignore. To ensure Truthout remains fearless, tough, and 100 percent independent, we need to raise $50,000 in the next 10 days. Every dollar raised goes directly toward the costs of producing news you can trust.
Please give what you can — because by supporting us with a tax-deductible donation, you’re not just preserving a source of news, you’re helping to safeguard what’s left of our democracy.