709
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/news

One woman miscarried in the restroom lobby of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to admit her. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.

The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide.

“It is shocking, it’s absolutely shocking,” said Amelia Huntsberger, an OB/GYN in Oregon. “It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care -- this is inconceivable.”

It’s happened despite federal mandates that the women be treated.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 175 points 1 month ago

So abortion being legal actually saves lives ? You don’t say !

I swear, the fact they call themselves “pro-life” while sowing death and misery is completely unacceptable. It’s like them calling themselves “conservative” while destroying nature and society…

[-] MrFappy 41 points 1 month ago

Or calling themselves “Christian” while spreading more hate than any other group on earth.

[-] UnfortunateShort 20 points 1 month ago

Pacifism is a core value for protestant Christians, as it was preached by Jesus himself. Which goes to show you how many people just use their on-paper religion as an excuse for whatever bullshit.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 110 points 1 month ago

“It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care – this is inconceivable.”

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means. This was all predicted as potential outcomes from overturning Roe. It's not even the first time, because this is what things were like before Roe. You know that quote? "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I used to think it was kind of cliché, but it seems to be more and more relevant all the time these days.

[-] [email protected] 72 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is an OB/GYN in a different state reviewing the cases at a medical level. You can be 100% sure she knows why they are occurring :

For Huntsberger, the OB-GYN, EMTALA was one of the few ways she felt protected to treat pregnant patients in Idaho, despite the state’s abortion ban. She left Idaho last year to practice in Oregon because of the ban.

What she is saying that it is absolutely shocking that these woman, in deep medical need, were turned away because of cruel and pandering state laws.

Shes making it clear that medically, these hospitals broke their hippocratic oath in order to comply with these heartless state laws while also violating federal law that requires them to provide medical care to those in need.

[-] [email protected] 43 points 1 month ago

Oh, I know all that. I still think "inconceivable" is the wrong choice of word. "Monstrous" is good. "Horrifying" works. Even "Heartbreaking", though that's maybe a little soft. Unfortunately, it's all too conceivable.

[-] IzzyScissor 34 points 1 month ago

Corollary: Those preventing history from being taught intend to repeat it.

[-] [email protected] 87 points 1 month ago

No, it's not fucking shocking. It's an extremely predictable consequence of religious zealotry legislating their sick version of morality.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

It is definitely not inconceivable. It is exceptionally conceivable. It is predictable as you said. If you outlaw proper maternal care, proper maternal care will not be given.

As a friend of mine always says, the cruelty is the point.

[-] NOT_RICK 84 points 1 month ago

It won’t bring their babies back, but these sure sound like some slam dunk lawsuits

[-] [email protected] 97 points 1 month ago

Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them. Medical facilities must comply with the law if they accept Medicare funding. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday that could weaken those protections.

Let's see how long that lasts.

Plus, the effect and point of many of these laws is to create massive liability to make pregnant patients untouchables. Running an OBGYN dept is becoming an unacceptable legal risk.

All is working as intended to harm women.

[-] [email protected] 50 points 1 month ago

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday that could weaken those protections.

And that's the crux of this whole fucking issue. The orange asshole got elected and weaseled in his judges to tip the balance of the highest court in America.

Just think what else he'll do if he's elected again.

[-] roguetrick 17 points 1 month ago

I don't even understand what legal justification the SCOTUS could use to hamper the EMTALA. They would be wildly legislating from the bench to do so.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

Like that ever stops them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ME5SENGER_24 56 points 1 month ago

Charge the hospital administration with Gross Negligence, Manslaughter and any other charges that will apply and correct this trend. Healthcare isn’t a privilege, it’s a basic human right and access to it should not be denied

[-] [email protected] 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The problem is, they're already in a position where they can get charged if they do treat these women, and end up having to do something the anti-abortion assholes don't approve of.

Charging them for not treating the women puts them in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation where the only logical course of action is to shut down the hospital and leave the state.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

And complete hospital closure is the only thing that will change some people's minds.

[-] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Those charges sure are an improvement over murder in the event the actions of you or your staff could be interpreted as an abortion.

I have no love for hospital administration or their treatment of employees and patients, but it's an disturbing position with few good answers.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hospital administration? How about we sue every backwards asshole who supports this unholy philosophy and make them pay for their consequences in real dollars an cents. We'll see how closely held their values truly are pretty quickly.

[-] Phegan 51 points 1 month ago
[-] TheControlled 11 points 1 month ago

Huh. Those were the exact words that popped in my head while reading the article.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BertramDitore 45 points 1 month ago

Why the hell are security guards and front desk staff making medical decisions? I’m sure their jobs aren’t easy, but this isn’t their job.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

Because Texas wombs are controlled by men.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid 34 points 1 month ago

See? Now that abortion is illegal, if you and your fetus die, that's the way God intended it to be!

Every life is precious and abortion is murder... unless God thinks otherwise, then abort that little fucker, God, and kill the lady for good measure!

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Every life* is precious.

*Not including the lives of pregnant women.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

Solution: stop fucking conservatives

[-] FlyingSquid 12 points 1 month ago

Lysistrata's solution only works if everyone agrees. Sadly, there are a lot of conservative women.

[-] Burn_The_Right 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Conservatives often breed like cockroaches. They take pride in how many children they produce, impoverished or not. And too often, neglecting their children is just seen as a way to "toughen 'em up".

Source: Am from the conservative south.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

I don't quite understand. How did banning abortions lead to doctors being scared of helping people give birth?

[-] Sam_Bass 34 points 1 month ago

They are threatened to be held responsible and imprisoned for helping a woman abort

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Khanzarate 30 points 1 month ago

If they accept the patient, and the patient needs an emergency abortion, then they could face legal consequences for providing one, or face losing their license for denying critical care.

Either way, if such a circumstance happens, the doctor is completely fucked, and they'd rather keep their job, and help other people.

There's confusion about what is and isn't allowed, which isn't helping. Doctors don't know what they could be sued for. Its in their best interest to not see patients like this. Doctors need protections at least, but governments have specifically taken steps to make them liable, and this confusion and refusal is part of the plan to make abortions this scary thing.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Because the state rules often aren't clear on what Drs can/cannot do, so they're scared of being arrested and charged.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

because if they fuck up at all, which happens, or something unforseen happens (which, yeah), they're liable. legally.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Drivebyhaiku 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's a major issue with laws when they intermingle with medical practice. Laws are kind of like bad computer code. It is written with an intention but that intention is only as good as how good your technical ability to write the code is which also hinges on understanding what all the potentially the factors at play are. Particularly when your law has particularly harsh penalties for misconduct.

Human bodies are complicated and a lot of law regarding operates in the space of "potential". In a court of law in things like self defense cases where you have to defend your actions from persecution by the code have to prove you had no other "potential" avenues to take because if it can be proven you had other choices or there is a chance however small that you overreacted and things theoretically could have turned out fine the law swoops in and leaves you open to prosecution.

But medical stuff is complicated and nuanced in ways the law is not. Law is a rigid computer code. If you have a situation leaves an opening in the law for "cases that are life threatening." and someone does the thing they then leave themselves open to the potential of having to prove that every single other option was exhausted. If someone is stable and not in immediate distress... Even though you know they will be later given predictable odds it becomes a nightmare of leaving more doubt so one tactic is to just wait until things are life threatening... But the problem with life threatening cases is they hold extra damages and risks. If your life is in danger your organs are failing. There is no question the house is burning down when the flames burst through the windows but if you wanted to mitigate the damages putting it out when the candle first tipped over has the best long term results ...

Say a law stipulates that it's only permissible to help in the event the house is "burning down". This means you have to agree in a court room that your definition of "burning down" is in fact a reasonable interpretation of that specific language. One tactic to be safe is you wait until nobody can argue the state of the house. Would you say a little spot of your carpet being on fire is the house "burning down"? It's not good sure but isn't that hyperbole? What constitutes "burning down" anyway? So your carpet burning isn't the house burning down and there's no provision for the the drapes and furniture, or an oil or oven fire... Those are all not causing damage directly to the structure of the house so the house isn't even burning much less "down"... But if you wait the house will catch fire... But is it "burning down"? It's when the structure of your house is in danger of collapsing right? Down still implies a fire where the house is pretty advanced and there isn't much left afterwards right? At what point is the house actually "burning down"? When the structure catches probably isn't burning "down" is it when 25% of the structure ia compromised? If you put out the fire then the house wouldn't be "down" would it? Still a lot of house that is in fact "up". Well 50% is probably a good call right? Oh but then it's only " in imminent danger of burning down" not actively "burning down" ...

Laws like anti abortion laws tend to be created to be big and showy and easy for lay people to read because they are essentially political showboating. Every place with a total abortion ban has shown to be terrible for women's healthcare in exactly this way and none of this outcome was a surprise to the people fighting to keep abortion legal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

you didn't hear it from me, but, so far, no has said that you can't miscarriage in public.

So, for the two people that would ever want to do that. Have at it.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
709 points (99.2% liked)

News

21174 readers
3343 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS