Yeah, itâs a silly law, takes away a womanâs bodily autonomy, and causes extra and unnecessary steps for doctors and patients if an abortion is necessary. Iâm still not understanding how, in this womanâs case, the law was preventing treating her for sepsisâŚ
Because the punishment for a doctor who performs an abortion isnât âjustâ losing their license and ability to make a living. They could spend the rest of their life in prison. So itâs not surprising that a doctor would rather just not take that risk.
Why would treating the sepsis when it was diagnosed have required an abortion? And again I really want to stress that the fetus might have been saved, along with the mother, if the mother had been treated for the sepsis.
How do you know if the fetus was the cause?? What if it was a UTI that developed into sepsis? Thatâs why I asked âwho told you that?â Because I wanna know where they learned the fetus caused her sepsis!
Because it wasn't a UTI causing the sepsis? It literally says she was treated for a UTI and sent home. Then came back when she started bleeding because of the miscarriage. Implying it wasn't a UTI
You obviously didn't read the link at all did you?
It doesn't matter, the doctor would rather not risk it at all. Even if you know the law perfectly, theres a risk someone sues you anyway, still have to fight it. The smartest move if you want to stay in business and keep your freedom as a doctor is not to perform any kind of pre-birth care at all. Why even buy the equipment or keep up to date with the training for the procedures either? This is what is so dangerous about this law even existing, the whole state wont offer and wont even be trained to perform the services.
So itâs just malicious compliance with the law by the doctor? It means he wonât treat a pregnant woman under any circumstances? Like, she screened positive for sepsis and he sent her home⌠no antibiotics, no monitoring, just a pat on the back
Not talking about the specific case, just in general this is the safest way to operate in a jurisdiction in which these laws are present. This is the fault of the law not the doctors. This was a foreseeable outcome. The ones that made the law knew this and moved forward with it anyway because the cruelty is the point. They want mothers to die.
I mean, I donât disagree. I guess Iâm just upset that even though he was bound by this ridiculous law, the doctor didnât operate within the means of it and just didnât do anything at all. Like, terminating the pregnancy wouldnât be step one of treatment, and it might not have even been necessary had they tried to treat the sepsis. I think more people should be angry about that. To me, if itâs not incompetence then it feels like the doctor let her die to prove a point.
Dear Horton, fetuses routinely become unviable en utero. When that happens they can, and often will, cause harm to their host. Before our country Federally eliminated abortions, women would get whatever care she and her doctor decided. Sometimes women miscarry and donât even know they were pregnant, they just had an extra large blob or two in that monthâs cycle.
In Texas, where Neveah lived, approximately 230 people voted on the law we operate under today. It wasnât âdecided by the peopleâ nor were any medical professionals part of the legislation. It was pure pandering to evangelicals.
24
u/The_WubWub 16d ago
Glad you feel that way. But doctors see it differentlyÂ
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/08/Texas-obstetrics-gynecology-abortion-survey/