• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doctors in red states put in impossible position to care properly for their pregnant patients

Jack2aTee

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I suspect that this is your personal confirmation bias talking.

Why? Because the data shows that the vast majority of those seeking abortions are "people of color."

As I pointed out here:

"So while I support a womans right to choose up to the early part of the second trimester, I wonder why so many (38%) were Black women, and 66% were non-white females including Black women per this 2019 CDC report in Pew Research.

"In the District of Columbia and 29 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC, 38% of all women who had abortions in 2019 were non-Hispanic Black, while 33% were non-Hispanic White, 21% were Hispanic, and 7% were of other races or ethnicities." https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/




IMO? Misreading of the prepared speech.

She needs to both review and practice a speech instead of just reading it.
Yes, I get it's going to cause more minorities to be born than whites. That's why I said "regardless of whether or not it is going to mainly affect women of color." What I was trying to say was it doesn't matter if 100 black children are born to every 25 white under the overturn of Roe . What this rep was accidentally saying IMHO is it is most important to save the 25 white children regardless of how many more are born to black mothers. Rep Miller probably figures the additional black children are living in ghettos and will kill themselves off in violence and in this way the numbers will balance out in the long run. That's not my belief so don't shoot the messenger.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,521
Reaction score
24,541
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, I get it's going to cause more minorities to be born than whites.

I see.

That's why I said "regardless of whether or not it is going to mainly affect women of color." What I was trying to say was it doesn't matter if 100 black children are born to every 25 white under the overturn of Roe . What this rep was accidentally saying IMHO is it is most important to save the 25 white children regardless of how many more are born to black mothers. Rep Miller probably figures the additional black children are living in ghettos and will kill themselves off in violence and in this way the numbers will balance out in the long run. That's not my belief so don't shoot the messenger.

I don't think that follows. Not at all. In fact I am completely confused trying to follow this train of thought. o_O
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
36,005
Reaction score
26,236
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
(Sigh) If the law states only in a medical emergency, then it is typically up to the treating physician to determine that.

There are any number of medical complications that can classify as such an emergency:

Research is your friend:

"Ectopic pregnancies—during which a fertilized egg implants itself outside of the uterus (mainly in one of the fallopian tubes)—are another example of medical emergencies. Ectopic pregnancies only occur in 1%-2% of pregnancies, but make up about 2.7% of all pregnancy-related deaths. A fetus cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy, which, left untreated for too long, can be harmful or fatal for the pregnant person.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, other life-threatening conditions for the pregnant person include: severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer that needs treatment right away, and an intrauterine infection known as chorioamnionitis following a premature rupture of the amniotic sac. A placental abruption, in which the placenta separates from the uterine lining, may also be considered a medical emergency in some cases of extensive bleeding.

These fetal abnormalities—which may only be detected on a 20-week fetal anatomy scan—include anencephaly (an underdeveloped brain and incomplete skull), renal agenesis (absence of one or both kidneys), and hydrops fetalis (extensive fluid build-up and swelling)." https://www.health.com/news/abortion-medically-necessary

Now I am also certain there may be legal issues raised in certain "hard States." That's when you take it back to the Courts.

Meanwhile, once again, if you wish to effect change, do it at the ballot box.


Here is a real world story about the stupidity of these laws...



 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
12,205
Reaction score
6,727
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Doctors in red states are complaining that abortion laws dealing with emergency situations that put a woman's life in harm's way are so vaguely written as to be unintelligible. Many states have only one sentence in making reference to a woman's life being danger such as

"...to prevent “death or substantial risk of death,” or “permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ”; and Idaho permits abortion “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” On Thursday, Oklahoma legislators approved a bill that would ban nearly all abortions starting from fertilization, with an exception to save the life of the mother “in a medical emergency.”

Such language is meaningless to physicians when thousands of different situations, some life-threatening in the immediacy, some in the near-term and others further down the road. Physicians are terrified of innocently running afoul of such vague and meaningless phraseology and ending up losing their medical license and worse being prosecuted for murder.

“The emergency is preventing that now. But such a decision won’t be legally recognized in Texas", says Nichelle Haynes, a perinatal psychiatrist from the Reproductive Psychiatry Clinic of Austin.

Typical situation that could arise. Bear in mind there are literally thousands of such situations facing caregivers:

"A pharmacy recently refused to fill a prescription for methotrexate, which treats an ectopic pregnancy by stopping the growth of the fertilized egg.

The pregnancy would never have resulted in the birth of a child, but was a serious risk to the mother. The embryo had attached in the patient’s fallopian tube which, if left untreated, would rupture and cause extensive internal bleeding. Emergency surgery could save the woman’s life if she were able to get to an emergency room fast enough but, if not, she would die from the blood loss.

“We told [the pharmacist] it’s a life-of-the-mother situation,” said Crawford. But they believed their employer wouldn’t permit the prescription. “They felt they would get in trouble.”


Those girls under 15 are 5 times more likely to die due to pregnancy than those over 20. You have to wonder what the percentage is for those 12 and under. Although many as young as 10 can actually get pregnant, it might be a death sentence for both mother and child.
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
12,205
Reaction score
6,727
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you understand a clear response or are you being intentionally "dense?" :unsure:

You asked a question; I provided a valid response.

I am on record as stating the SCOTUS decision was the correct one.

I have defended that point in other threads on the subject.

I have provided reasoned and valid responses in THIS thread.

If you choose to "misunderstand," then that is your problem, not mine. :coffee:

So you think a state should be able to deny someone an abortion, even when the chances of the mother dying are extremely high. In the article above a ten year old rape victim in Ohio was denied an abortion. Her chances of living through a pregnancy and giving birth, well I would not put money on it if I were you. Anyone under the age of 15 is 5 times more likely to die from pregnancy and I suspect someone as young as ten is basically doomed. So the life of a ten year old rape victim is not as important as a bunch of cells and the probability of the a living child is remote, and yet, a state can pass a law condemning her to probably death. And of course you agree with this!!!!!!!! And the lying members of SCOTUS just passed a probable death sentence on this girl/baby. This girl was lucky that she was able to go to another state to get the abortion, but if Ohio and other states pass laws making it illegal to leave the state for an abortion, even this would not have been available to this little girl. Yeah, glad you are so willing to stick up for the lying five on the court.
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
12,205
Reaction score
6,727
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is nothing in any states laws that would prevent a doctor from handling an abortion related emergency.
Isn't there? There are states that are questioning the removal of the egg when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
36,005
Reaction score
26,236
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There is nothing in any states laws that would prevent a doctor from handling an abortion related emergency.

Why was this woman denied an abortion?

 

Jack2aTee

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I see.



I don't think that follows. Not at all. In fact I am completely confused trying to follow this train of thought. o_O
Well, ultimately the point is probably not even worth defending. But I thank you for at least indulging it. (y)
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
36,394
Reaction score
9,449
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why was this woman denied an abortion?


It's unlikely that we are getting the full story from that tweet. I doubt the doctor or hospital refused to perform a DNC which is not banned for miscarraiges. My bet is that there were issues with her insurance covering it.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
36,005
Reaction score
26,236
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's unlikely that we are getting the full story from that tweet. I doubt the doctor or hospital refused to perform a DNC which is not banned for miscarraiges. My bet is that there were issues with her insurance covering it.

So you think she is lying?
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
36,394
Reaction score
9,449
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So you think she is lying?
No, I just don't think she is telling the entire story. I have never heard of a doctor refusing to perform a DNC after a miscarriage.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
36,005
Reaction score
26,236
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No, I just don't think she is telling the entire story. I have never heard of a doctor refusing to perform a DNC after a miscarriage.


Wow! Houston must be full of liars... Here is ANOTHER couple who faced the same kind of thing... Houston Methodist is also in on the big lie....

But on May 10, at 18 weeks pregnant, the 26-year-old Elizabeth returned from a jog and saw blood leaking out of her vagina. Then her water broke.

Later, in the Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital emergency room, she learned she had lost a dangerous amount of amniotic fluid, which is essential for fetal development. She faced an increased risk of infection and other life-threatening complications. Doctors presented her with two devastating options: Wait until Theodora becomes viable around 24 weeks and deliver her, only to watch her die or live with a severe disability, or induce labor now and effectively terminate the pregnancy.
“In my mind, the only rational thing to do, on top of the only emotionally merciful thing to do, would be to choose (termination), to save her from going through this type of suffering,” said Elizabeth, a political science graduate student at the University of Houston. “I couldn’t justify putting her through that.”

Elizabeth agonized over her choice. Then she realized she didn’t have one. The hospital did not approve her for immediate induction, a Houston Methodist spokesperson said, because she did not meet the standards set forth in the state’s highly restrictive abortion laws, which create civil penalties for terminating a pregnancy when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat.

The newly amended Texas Health and Safety Code only allows a termination when the pregnant woman is in “danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” — vague terminology that is open to a range of interpretations. A violation opens providers up to lawsuits, fines and, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, a felony charge.

 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
36,005
Reaction score
26,236
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
With any social media post, dig deeper to find out the truth for yourself.


Is the Houston Methodist spokesperson lying? It sound like you don't want the hear the truth...

But on May 10, at 18 weeks pregnant, the 26-year-old Elizabeth returned from a jog and saw blood leaking out of her vagina. Then her water broke.

Later, in the Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital emergency room, she learned she had lost a dangerous amount of amniotic fluid, which is essential for fetal development. She faced an increased risk of infection and other life-threatening complications. Doctors presented her with two devastating options: Wait until Theodora becomes viable around 24 weeks and deliver her, only to watch her die or live with a severe disability, or induce labor now and effectively terminate the pregnancy.
“In my mind, the only rational thing to do, on top of the only emotionally merciful thing to do, would be to choose (termination), to save her from going through this type of suffering,” said Elizabeth, a political science graduate student at the University of Houston. “I couldn’t justify putting her through that.”

Elizabeth agonized over her choice. Then she realized she didn’t have one. The hospital did not approve her for immediate induction, a Houston Methodist spokesperson said, because she did not meet the standards set forth in the state’s highly restrictive abortion laws, which create civil penalties for terminating a pregnancy when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat.

The newly amended Texas Health and Safety Code only allows a termination when the pregnant woman is in “danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” — vague terminology that is open to a range of interpretations. A violation opens providers up to lawsuits, fines and, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, a felony charge.

 

Jack2aTee

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Those girls under 15 are 5 times more likely to die due to pregnancy than those over 20. You have to wonder what the percentage is for those 12 and under. Although many as young as 10 can actually get pregnant, it might be a death sentence for both mother and child.
True enough. A 12-year old victim of incest was recently taken by her mother to Kansas to get an abortion. She would have died otherwise.

 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
36,394
Reaction score
9,449
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wow! Houston must be full of liars... Here is ANOTHER couple who faced the same kind of thing... Houston Methodist is also in on the big lie....

But on May 10, at 18 weeks pregnant, the 26-year-old Elizabeth returned from a jog and saw blood leaking out of her vagina. Then her water broke.

Later, in the Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital emergency room, she learned she had lost a dangerous amount of amniotic fluid, which is essential for fetal development. She faced an increased risk of infection and other life-threatening complications. Doctors presented her with two devastating options: Wait until Theodora becomes viable around 24 weeks and deliver her, only to watch her die or live with a severe disability, or induce labor now and effectively terminate the pregnancy.
“In my mind, the only rational thing to do, on top of the only emotionally merciful thing to do, would be to choose (termination), to save her from going through this type of suffering,” said Elizabeth, a political science graduate student at the University of Houston. “I couldn’t justify putting her through that.”

Elizabeth agonized over her choice. Then she realized she didn’t have one. The hospital did not approve her for immediate induction, a Houston Methodist spokesperson said, because she did not meet the standards set forth in the state’s highly restrictive abortion laws, which create civil penalties for terminating a pregnancy when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat.

The newly amended Texas Health and Safety Code only allows a termination when the pregnant woman is in “danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” — vague terminology that is open to a range of interpretations. A violation opens providers up to lawsuits, fines and, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, a felony charge.

Ran into a paywall on your link.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
36,005
Reaction score
26,236
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Also note her condition was from last year that had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling.

WTF? This thread is about DOCTORS in red states, not about the supreme court ruling... good lord Does the link work for you?
 
Top Bottom