To discourage the others

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Well you see it’s only women, so it doesn’t matter.

Pregnancy became far more dangerous in Texas after the state banned abortion in 2021, ProPublica found in a first-of-its-kind data analysis.

The rate of sepsis shot up more than 50% for women hospitalized when they lost their pregnancies in the second trimester, ProPublica found. The surge in this life-threatening condition, caused by infection, was most pronounced for patients whose fetus may still have had a heartbeat when they arrived at the hospital.

ProPublica previously reported on two such cases in which miscarrying women in Texas died of sepsis after doctors delayed evacuating their uteruses. Doing so would have been considered an abortion.

Remember Savita Halappanavar? That’s how she died at University Hospital Galway. The hospital stood by and let her die.

The new reporting shows that, after the state banned abortion, dozens more pregnant and postpartum women died in Texas hospitals than had in pre-pandemic years, which ProPublica used as a baseline to avoid COVID-19-related distortions. As the maternal mortality rate dropped nationally, ProPublica found, it rose substantially in Texas.

ProPublica’s analysis is the most detailed look yet at a rise in life-threatening complications for women losing a pregnancy after Texas banned abortion. It raises concerns that the same pattern may be occurring in more than a dozen other states with similar bans.

Because women are just machines for making more humans. Men are people, but women are just the mechanism by which babies are manufactured. It doesn’t matter if they die of sepsis.

The standard of care for miscarrying patients in the second trimester is to offer to empty the uterus, according to leading medical organizations, which can lower the risk of contracting an infection and developing sepsis. If a patient’s water breaks or her cervix opens, that risk rises with every passing hour.

Sepsis can lead to permanent kidney failure, brain damage and dangerous blood clotting. Nationally, it is one of the leading causes of deaths in hospitals.

While some Texas doctors have told ProPublica they regularly offer to empty the uterus in these cases, others say their hospitals don’t allow them to do so until the fetal heartbeat stops or they can document a life-threatening complication.

When in doubt, let the woman die.

Comments

5 responses to “To discourage the others”

  1. Sumi Avatar
    Sumi

    Where are the US doctors willing to be jailed for their beliefs? Where are the doctors willing to rely on the necessity defense and jury nullification?

    Canada has had no abortion laws for almost four decades because one doctor, Henry Morgentaler, wouldn’t back down when the government tried to shut his abortion clinics.

    Morgentaler survived Auschwitz and Dachau before coming to Canada and completing his medical studies in Montreal. He set up illegal abortion clinics in several cities and dared the governments to act. In 1973, he admitted to performing over 5,000 abortions and was arrested and charged.

    Between 1973 and 1975, Morgentaler was tried three times in Montreal; each time, he raised the defence of necessity, and each time, he was acquitted. Prosecutors appealed, the appeals court overturned the jury and ordered him jailed in 1975. He served 10 months, suffering a heart attack while in solitary.

    On his release, Morgentaler set up more abortion clinics. By that time, the law had been changed and appeals courts could no longer substitute a conviction for a jury acquittal; they could only order a new trial. With all the jury nullifications, the cops were getting cold feet about further arrests.

    In 1982, Canada amended its constitution to bring in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, codifying many of the rights in the American Bill of Rights. Morgentaler challenged Canada’s abortion law under the new Charter. In 1988, the Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional and told Parliament to rewrite it. The House of Commons passed a new bill by nine votes and sent it to the Senate for approval. The bill failed on a tie vote. Since then, Canada has had no criminal restrictions on abortion and it is a publicly funded medical procedure.

    I don’t think Canadian juries are more prone to nullification than American ones. Even a rural Texas jury doesn’t want to jail doctors, especially when rural hospitals are closing. Necessity is a common law defense in American law too, typically applying in emergency situations where immediate action is required to avert imminent danger – such as saving the mother’s life. Where’s the doctor crazy enough to do the right thing by the mother, damn the consequences?

  2. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    Sumi, thanks for the run down on Canadian history and jurisprudence. It helps put things in perspective to know what other states and countries are doing.

    Too many in the US were complacent about Roe v Wade. I heard lots of people explaining how it would never be struck down, there were other things that we needed to worry about. Yeah, they’d pass restrictions, but they wouldn’t actually end abortion (only make it unattainable in practice for any but the wealthier women). One commentator said the Republicans would never allow it to happen, because it has been a winning issue for them for so long, and if it actually were ended, they’d lose that edge.

    Well, they were wrong. I was sure they were probably wrong, but I often seemed to be in a choir of one…well, two, if you count my husband, and since we are no longer legally only one, we should (how long that will last, I have no idea).

  3. Seanna Avatar
    Seanna

    Oddly, a significant number of people, even progressive types, sometimes express concern that Canada has no laws regulating abortion. I have sometimes been challenged by forced birthers who ask if I think that a woman should be able to have a “late-term” abortion, and if so when/how should the line be drawn – what if the silly pregnant lady* capriciously decides that she wants to terminate her pregnancy at 39.5 weeks? To which I have responded that, yes, I do think that it is completely appropriate that there are no restrictions on abortion in Canada, and I have challenged them to show me a case in which their straw woman scenario has actually happened

    But to continue: There are, as pointed out in the OP, cases in which the fetus is non-viable, but doctors are not providing the clearly necessary medical treatment if it looks like an abortion, either claiming moral misgivings or fearing litigation. And women are dying as a result. Beyond that, there are somewhat less clear cases – for example, an accident or medical condition arises late in the pregnancy which necessitates a choice between an action to save the life of the woman which jeopardizes the pregnancy vs an action to save the pregnancy which jeopardizes the life of the woman. This decision must be up to the pregnant woman. She might choose to risk her life for the fetus, but it is her choice to make – not the government’s choice, not the courts’ choice, and not the doctors’ choice.

    * Because this is the Internet, I feel obliged to note that I am using this phrase as deliberate caricature, and I have not personally called women “ladies” for at least 50 years.

  4. Sumi Avatar
    Sumi

    iknklast, I realize, of course, that things are different in the US. Most significantly, in Canada only the federal government can make criminal law. Knock out the federal abortion law and nothing remains.

    The US, in contrast, has a patchwork of federal and state criminal law. I’m not a US lawyer, but my understanding of Dobbs is that regulating abortion is now left to the state legislatures. This means that doctors may want to be selective in where they challenge abortion laws, opting to start with states that have weaker penalties.

    But as nullifications grow and precedents increase it becomes harder to enforce abortion laws even in states with stricter laws. Obviously, this will take time, but it all starts with doctors willing to risk it all for their patients.

  5. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    either claiming moral misgivings or fearing litigation. And women are dying as a result

    But not having moral misgivings about letting the woman die – in spite of their Hippocratic oath. A fetus that will not be born alive if the woman dies, vs. a living woman? No contest. Fetus wins.

    my understanding of Dobbs is that regulating abortion is now left to the state legislatures

    This is true. Some states have advanced ballot issues to let the voters decide. In most of those states, the voters have decided in favor of legal abortion (see: Kansas). In Nebraska, we had two measures on the ballot: one to make a constitutional amendment (Nebraska constitution) banning abortion, the other making an amendment permitting abortion. At the time, I sort of suspected they would both ‘win’ – get enough ‘yes’ votes to carry the question. The legislature suspected the same thing, and had a measure in place for how to decide – they would go with the one that got the higher percentage.

    Unfortunately, the Lutherans and Catholics hold sway here. We are one of the few (maybe the only) where the voters selected an abortion ban. At this point, I don’t think it’s happened because the legislature has been too busy figuring out how to nullify the voters on minimum wage, paid sick leave, and low income housing, all of which passed…and none of which the conservative Republican legislature likes…never mind that the voters are also heavily conservative Republicans.

    Some of them, when being honest, acknowledge that a lot of money came into Nebraska because several of our border states had outlawed abortion. That might be the reason for all of the hemming and hawing…in this case, maybe I should say ‘go capitalism’. I guess maybe now and then, greed really is good?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts