A Texas Woman Claims That She Nearly Died of Sepsis After Being Denied an Abortion
"It was a waiting game, the most horrific version of a staring contest: Whose life would end first? Mine, or my daughter's?"

"It was a waiting game, the most horrific version of a staring contest," wrote Texas woman Amanda Zurawski this week on the feminist website The Meteor. "Whose life would end first? Mine, or my daughter's?"
Zurawski's tale of a tragic, "inevitable" miscarriage, followed by a seemingly legally compelled denial of medical care, is likely to become more and more common in states with strict abortion bans. Whether these vaguely written laws would actually be used against a doctor who performed an abortion to save a woman's life is unclear. But it seems that in states where abortion is banned, cautious physicians often delay abortions even when that delay places a woman's life in danger. As long as anti-abortion laws remain vague regarding medically necessary abortions, the lives of women like Zurawski will continue to hang in the balance.
One day in late August of this year, when Zurawski was 18 weeks pregnant, she "knew something was wrong." After an examination from her doctor, she was diagnosed with an "incompetent cervix," a condition where the cervix dilates too early in the pregnancy, often leading to premature birth or miscarriage. She claims that she was told by doctors that a miscarriage was "inevitable."
According to University of California, Davis Heath Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a doctor would typically offer a woman experiencing a second-trimester miscarriage several options to prevent infection, including labor induction or surgical evacuation—a standard abortion procedure. While Texas law has an exception for women experiencing a "life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed," Zurawski's doctors told her abortion would be off the table unless her daughter's heart stopped beating or Zurawski developed an infection so severe that her life became endangered.
"I knew I was going to lose my baby. And I knew it could be days—or weeks—of living with paralyzing agony before we could move forward," Zurawski wrote. Her limited options left her in an extremely difficult position. Zurawski lives in Austin, making the nearest abortion clinic, in New Mexico, an eight-hour drive away. To make matters scarier, infection can strike rapidly. "[Traveling] was off the table as soon as we knew that she could get sick quickly or she could go into delivery quickly," Zurawski's husband, Josh, told The Meteor in a separate interview.
Three days after her diagnosis, Zurawski developed sepsis, a life-threatening infection that allowed doctors to justify the early delivery of her now-stillborn daughter. "I thought, OK, let's get this horrific thing over where I have to deliver my daughter 22 weeks early, and then I'll go home, and we can start the healing process," Zurawski told The Meteor. "I don't think I understood at that point that I was septic, but I knew that it was more sick than I was supposed to be." Zurawski was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after delivery.
"Tests found both my blood and my placenta teeming with bacteria that had multiplied, probably as a result of the wait. I would stay in the ICU for three more days as medical professionals battled to save my life," she wrote. "I didn't realize until nearly a month later that my doctors, nurses, and loved ones feared I was going to die."
Zurawski luckily survived her battle with sepsis. According to one study, the case fatality rate for pregnancy-related sepsis has been estimated to be as high as 8 percent. Further, her bout with the infection possibly left long-term damage to her uterus. "I'm having surgery to remove the massive amount of scar tissue plaguing my uterus as a result of the infections," Zurawski wrote. "We don't know yet whether the baby we want more than anything will ever be possible."
Stories like Zurawski's have piled up in recent months. Following the overturn of 1973's Roe v. Wade, 13 states have passed full abortion bans from conception. Five contain no exceptions for the mother's physical health, including Texas. In these states, state governments functionally deny doctors their ability to protect their patients in cases where miscarriage is inevitable and risk to the mother's life is high. "[The doctors] were just as furious as we were because their hands were tied," Zurawski told The Meteor.
Often, supporters of anti-abortion legislation claim that anti-abortion laws like Texas'— with exceptions allowing abortion to save a woman's life—would allow abortions in cases like Zurawski's. "While some laws contain definitions and exceptions that more explicitly speak to certain situations, each law reviewed does not prevent mothers from receiving the medical care necessary," wrote Mary Harned and Ingrid Skop of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life group. "A plain reading of any of these statutes easily refutes the false and dangerous misinformation being spread by pro-abortion activists."
However, women have repeatedly claimed they were denied nonemergency, yet "lifesaving" abortions. For example, The 19th reports that, despite Ohio having an exception allowing abortions after six weeks to save the mother's life, affidavits from abortion providers in the state claimed that at least two women were denied abortions despite cancer diagnoses—a condition the Lozier Institute directly notes should "fall under exemptions for the 'life of the mother.'"
Most anti-abortion legislation is vague. And a vaguely written law with steep consequences for violators (life in prison in some cases), leaves both hospitals and doctors unwilling to risk prosecution—even if it means allowing a woman's preventable death. Zurawski describes a harrowing ordeal—the loss of her child. But what turned her ordeal into a life-threatening event was an unclear state law and the nervous hospitals and doctors such laws create.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So, there's an exception in the law for precisely this sort of thing.
Doctors refused to treat.
Either someone's full of shit, or the doctors are committing malpractice.
Seems like a tailor made story for emotional appeal. Or.. is it just me?
The same story happened to an American tourist in Malta a few months ago. Miscarriage and abortion are similar things and abortion bans will become deadly miscarriages
Lol, no they won't you lying shit.
And miscarriage and abortion are only similar in the way cancer deaths and homicide are similar.
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer and other ASSorted micro-managing busybodies, Nosenheimers, and Buttinskies will decide FOR YOU, mothers, loved ones, and doctors!!! They WILL be looking over your shoulders, and deciding FOR YOU!!! Because their punishment boners can NEVER be sated!!! OBEY OR DIE, peons!!!!
(And often, ye will obey, and die anyway!)
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (ks-03) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Close but no cigar.
Criminal dies trying to commit murder.
Like Nazis murdering millions of Jews. Ja, Herr Misek?
Misek’s come back? (What a GAS GAS GAS!)
The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. The later it happens in pregnancy, the more problems that occur.
Conservaturds ***WILL*** punish God for that utterly callous disrespect for SACRED HUMAN LIFE!!!!
The medical term for the result of either an aneurism or stabbing a hobo is "mortality", but that don't mean they're same-same.
You are dumber than a box of rocks
A box of regular, terrestrial rocks or rocks that spontaneously fell from the sky, or are you unable to tell the difference?
"You are dumber than a box of rocks"
Could be, but you're entirely too stupid to figure it out.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
The fact is that it is not uncommon for doctors to treat a miscarriage with a follow-up D&C to remove dead tissue. If doctors are now afraid to do the D&C for fear of an abortion indictment women risk sepsis.
Holy fucking shit!
Sure, a baby just passed through it and it won't close for another 6 weeks but we gotta dilate it some more!
Hot fucking damn are you retarded!
You should take some time and read up on miscarriage treatment.
I'm pro-life, but you can have crazy prosecutors that would go after docs in this situation.
There was a doc in Texas who was prosecuted by Kim Ogg for vaccinating people rather than letting the COVID vax expire. She still has a law license.
"I’m pro-life, but"
Nice attempt at concern trolling.
Really? This is concern-trolling? Because I don't think that valid medical emergencies make abortions illegal or immoral? A doc's fear of prosecution is a valid one.
If a doctor's fear of prosecution overrides his or her duty to provide care for a valid medical emergency, that doc is a piece of shit and that concern is not valid.
I don't think it's reasonable to ask doctors to risk losing their licenses, getting fined or even going to prison if a prosecutor decides to second guess their medical judgment. Even if they win their case, they're still going to rack up big legal fees and possibly suffer serious damage to their reputation. Doctors aren't saints. Given the threat of harsh punishment and narrow yet vague exceptions, most doctors are going to err on the side of caution. This isn't idle speculation. Just look what happened after the DEA's new "guidance" on pain medication.
No it isn't.
Any doctor claiming fear of prosecution for a valid medical emergency is making a contrived statement for the press.
The nurses, x-ray technicians, sonographers and other staff involved, as well as the recordings and other diagnostic materials will all make it crystal clear if a procedure was needed.
I don't know who you guys imagine that you're tricking, but medical diagnostics and procedures aren't performed in secret. There are dozens of people involved and plenty of hard evidence.
This whole issue is ludicrous concern trolling.
>Any doctor claiming fear of prosecution for a valid medical emergency is making a contrived statement for the press.
I think this is my exact concern.
Spare me. The issue is that these new laws force doctors to have to choose - IIRC in one or two states, providing only a defence to a charge not exemptions from prosecution. Legislators putting doctors in a position where they are forced to risk their livelihoods if they provide normal medical treatment to a patient is flatly immoral.
And it is the height of moral cowardice to lay the blame for a doctor who does not want to take that risk at the feet of the doctor, not the legislators.
Any doctor claiming fear of prosecution for a valid medical emergency is making a contrived statement for the press.
Can cake bakers get cake baking malpractice insurance? Asking for a friend who refuses to bake cakes out of fear of being sued.
Cake bakers are, of course, entitled to torte insurance.
Yeah, whatever--tell that to the doc Kim Ogg tried to send to jail.
I agree and I call complete BS on this story.
My wife experienced something similar to this. Our third child miscarried extremely late in pregnancy, but not late enough to survive. There is absolutely no comparison between that situation and an abortion, and no one but a ghoul would get confused between the two cases.
The case where one loses a child one wants in this manner is a devastating, life-changing experience. It is disgusting that people would use these kinds of stories to try to scare people about abortion. The two things are completely different and easy to distinguish.
Not me. This happens all the time with new laws and regulations; it's just less life threatening/dramatic when your just trying to figure out how to comply with the newest energy efficiency guidelines.
Stuck in California … spot on! I had to double-check to see if I might be reading Politico rather than reason.
Woah! That's gay!
Here's the problem: at what point does it become "life threatening"? She describes the miscarriage as "inevitable." But at the time when her doctor told her this, both she and the fetus were perfectly healthy in the sense that neither one of them was about to die due to their own state of health. In order not to be prosecuted, do you have to wait until the mother is a week, a day, or an hour from death? Do you need to wait till there's an active infection or other immediate threat to the mother's life? And as a physician, how do you balance the increasing risk to the mother's life against your decreasing risk of being prosecuted? I'm guessing that for the average physician, or average person, for that matter, you're going to allow a greater risk to the mother in order to decrease your chances of seeing the inside of a cell.
This write up is very shoddy work. Incompetent cervix means the woman is at risk of miscarriage in terms of not being able to hold the baby in until development is done.
At what point did an infection occur? Incompetent cervix is treated with bed rest and a medical procedure. I’ve known several women treated for it that managed to carry to viability with no infection.
Incompetent cervix is not an illness/disease/deformation of the baby. At what point did they cause an infection and stillbirth?
This story is full of logic holes.
Wrong.
Texas abortion law effectively forces Doctors
to consider litigation before they
consider the life and health of their patient.
Q__What is the goal of the forced birther movement?
A__Prevent abortions.
Not the life or health of women.
Or directly to the point..........
Q__What is the goal of the forced birther movement?
A__To put [WE] puritan Power-Mad mobs in charge of everyone's PERSONAL pregnancy.
Her daughter? I thought it was just a clump.
That's obnoxious. This woman deserves our empathy, not snark.
Why? She's using whatever legitimacy there is in her statements to enable murder. I wouldn't put it past an active to deliberately put themselves in danger just to make their contrived story more impactful.
Lock her up!!!!!!
Am I doing this right?
RE: murder
>>>
Abortion is justified homicide.
There is no right to exist,
inside another Human Being.
It is... Same self-boosting statements as pretending a bundle of logs is someone's house. Problem is; there's a whole mob trying to make GUN enforced legislation on a bundle of logs that would only apply to a house.
Zurawski’s doctors told her abortion would be off the table unless her daughter’s heart stopped beating or Zurawski developed an infection so severe that her life became endangered.
Where did these doctors get their medical degrees, California Upstairs Medical College? Having an incompetent cervix that will lead to an “inevitable” miscarriage, which can be potentially life-threatening in and of itself, is precisely what these exceptions are for.
Further, her bout with the infection possibly left long-term damage to her uterus. "I'm having surgery to remove the massive amount of scar tissue plaguing my uterus as a result of the infections," Zurawski wrote. "We don't know yet whether the baby we want more than anything will ever be possible."
An incompetent cervix made the possibility of that extremely unlikely already. My cousin's ex-wife has that, and the one time she actually got pregnant, and it wasn't for lack of trying, she had a miscarraige. Some women's bodies are simply not made to deliver healthy babies, and then you have women who can pop out 10 without hardly breaking a sweat.
They're afraid of prosecutors.
Rittenhouse never should have been prosecuted--where was the evidence that could prove BRD that he was not acting in self-defense when he shot the assailants? But he was.
This basically nails the issue.
In what way?
In the way that prosecutors are fucking assholes who don’t give two shits about the law even as it is written.
Now prove there is an overzealous cabal of pro-life absolutists looking to lick up women for ordinary medical emergencies and not atrocious behavior. Rittenhouse was persecuted for political purposes only with the DA taking sides with a violent mob actively burning down a city he's supposed to be protecting from such.
Now prove there is an overzealous cabal of pro-life absolutists looking to lick up women for ordinary medical emergencies
Isn't it a bit late to be backing up to the "It's not happening, your eyes deceive you!" stage?
Well, they should also be afraid of prosecutors if they let a woman die because they refused to provide medically necessary care.
They’ll just have to… you know, do the medically right thing.
Yes, and putting doctors in situations where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't at the whim of prosecutors, based on vague legislation, couldn't possibly end badly, like with any doctor with half a brain getting out of certain specialties that put them at risk. Look how well giving pain management over to the government has worked out for reducing opioid addiction.
Quite. Or else they move states.
Government creates a medical monopoly and a drug monopoly. Irresponsible doctors take advantage of those monopolies and overprescribe drugs to enrich themselves. Stupid patients take drugs they don’t need and become addicted. And then government charges responsible tax payers for the whole mess.
And the only part of this rotten system you don’t like is that you can’t get drugs more easily. Good thinking! You’re a testament to the intelligence of the average American voter/consumer!
My cousin’s ex-wife has that, and the one time she actually got pregnant, and it wasn’t for lack of trying, she had a miscarraige. Some women’s bodies are simply not made to deliver healthy babies, and then you have women who can pop out 10 without hardly breaking a sweat.
Both issues. Between my father and my Grandpa, they’ve suffered and (mostly) beaten probably a dozen cases of sepsis with varying levels of diagnosis and treatment (and 0 pregnancies). Well before COVID, it’s not entirely clear whether Grandpa should’ve been classified as ‘with sepsis’ or ‘of sepsis’.
The idea that a woman undergoing fertility treatment hasn’t even considered the possibility that the pregnancy could end her life is unfathomable to me. Doubly so for her and her husband.
So, "she knew the job was dangerous when she took it, Fred"? You're sick.
So, killing people is OK as long as you're optimistic about the outcome?
I don't know what that means.
I suspect that the doctors had an agenda, and needed a news story to support it, so they exaggerated the legal risks beyond what Texas law clearly states.
Zurawski lives in Austin, making the nearest abortion clinic, in New Mexico, an eight-hour drive away.
And because they live in Austin, of all places, one wonders if this was to create a test case. I think that's probably an unfair reading of this, but it strikes me that there IS a specific carve-out in the law for this exact situation yet this one particular hospital and this one particular doctor didn't think there was.
I'd be intensely curious if this couple sought out a second opinion from literally any other Doctor on this one, because I find it difficult to believe you couldn't find one in Austin, of all places, to perform this procedure.
If my life, or the life of my wife, is in danger you can bet your ass I'd be taking her somewhere that would treat them. Be that a consult with another physician in state or an 8 hour drive to New Mexico.
I think the most likely scenario is that this couple probably 'trust doctors' and assume what one doctor tells you must be the truth and therefore a second consult is a waste of time, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Is it libertarian to blame the victim?
It's not unlibertarian to look at news stories skeptically and via the use of Reason and logic, wonder if there might be mitigating facts that could turn the narrative on its head. The more emotional and breathless the story, the more staid and cautious should be the reaction.
Is it libertarian to accept every case as presented without critical examination?
I at least prefaced my comment by admitting it was probably an unfair reading of the story, but that doesn't make my questions any less valid.
It is libertarian to hold people accountable for the consequences of their choices. She chose to get pregnant. She chose to live in Texas. She chose not to consult a second doctor after the first one turned out to be incompetent. None of those choices make here a “victim”.
No, it's having her life put in jeopardy because stupid laws made her doctors afraid to give her timely treatment that makes her a victim.
She got the medical care she signed up for: her doctor, her insurance, her state. She doesn’t like it? She can move.
It could be an insurance issue. My insurance requires me to use only specific hospitals/doctors or pay full price out of network. Doctor shopping is not so easy in a case that is inherently as complicated as this lady's and potentially extremely expensive. Which I am sure her multiple procedures and 3days in ICU and future surgery will be.
Dunno. Maybe those kids will get rainbow fetanyl in their Halloween candy.
And because they live in Austin, of all places, one wonders if this was to create a test case. I think that’s probably an unfair reading of this
An alternative reading is that prosecutors are searching high and low to make an example of doctors in Austin re abortion.
If that’s what you think, I’d invite you to visit Austin. It’s basically California, and if they’re looking for test cases it’s to get the law overturned.
And even with the threat of prosecution, there are many doctor’s with a spine that would put the interests of their patient’s life above a risk of prosecution in performing a legally permissible procedure. It’s literally why I wondered if they had a second consult with a different doctor in a different system.
This is likely grounds for a malpractice suit, either way. Damages for rendering her sterile will make that hospital think twice.
This is likely grounds for a malpractice suit, either way. Damages for rendering her sterile will make that hospital think twice.
Yeah, no shit. I'm trying to imagine a physician who declares your fetus "nonviable" and then refuses to remove it from your body because he was hoping to see someone write about this subject on a popular feminist website.
"It was a waiting game, the most horrific version of a staring contest," wrote Texas woman Amanda Zurawski this week on the feminist website The Meteor. "Whose life would end first? Mine, or my daughter's?"
Seems like someone is underinformed about exactly what it means, in the large, to be a parent.
Sick. You're sick.
So you think parents should be outliving their children more often?
Unintelligible.
You don't seem to get the part where the child would die either way. But you don't really give a damn, either, do you?
Incompetent cervix isn’t about the baby! The risk was going into preterm labor and delivering a severely under developed baby that would otherwise have been fine.
What it sounds like is the baby died inside her, but that’s not from an incompetent cervix. The write up on this is shit. If she had an incompetent cervix, her body would never have held onto the baby, dead or alive, long enough to develop sepsis.
Tests found both my blood and my placenta teeming with bacteria that had multiplied, probably as a result of the wait.
Right. Because, fuck presumption of innocence, shadows of doubt and all the other bullshit. Also, let's ignore the fact that, in the US and around the world, men are both more likely to develop sepsis and more likely to die from untreated sepsis... sans pregnancy... and jump straight to The Science! conclusion where abortions prevent sepsis.
It's quite clear that in this case, timely abortion would have prevented the sepsis, sicko.
timely abortion would have prevented the sepsis
So you would stake your life that everyone who gets an abortion won't suffer sepsis?
Not at all what was said. But keep arguing with the voices in your head.
Not at all what was said.
Talk about voices in heads! Do you speak English? I didn't say it's what he said and I didn't argue with a response he didn't give. I asked if he would he stake a life, his life, on the fact that the pregnancy caused the sepsis. Same question to you, would you stake your life, or anyone else's, that the pregnancy caused the sepsis?
Get help.
I won't claim that "no one" will. But I will claim that it's vastly less common. But, hey, nothing says pro-life like rendering women who actually want children sterile.
Weird. I ask this exceedingly straightforward question that pretty much every parent should ask themselves before committing to having a kid, or maybe even most people should ask themselves before engaging in sex, and that most parents who have kids would answer out of hand and I can't even get an answer.
No, you asked a nonsensical question.
I asked a sensible question with a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer that you don't want to answer. I'd ask you which word or piece of grammar in my question you don't understand but that's more complicated than the question I asked. I give my 4th grader an 80% chance of understanding the question, maybe getting tripped up by the word 'sepsis' but, even without understanding the word 'sepsis', he would at least grasp that it's a 'yes or no' question and be able to provide an answer.
Gibberish.
By definition, abortion always prevents sepsis from pregnancy.
Pregnancy is risky; a woman assumes that risk when she chooses to get pregnant. And let’s not kid ourselves, it’s a choice.
She shouldn't have to assume the risk of being denied timely medical care because the law is retarded.
The law doesn't dictate how soon/or late she can be treated for sepsis. If she wanted to be treated for sepsis sooner, she should've sought out better doctors.
Get help.
Now, or should I wait for a few days because someone, somewhere might be pregnant?
Stop living in a fantasy world.
First of all, I think she is misrepresenting what happened .
Second, nobody is entitled to medical care. Lots of people die even though there are medical procedures that theoretically could save them. That’s the real world: stop whining and live accordingly.
By definition, abortion always prevents sepsis from pregnancy.
No. It doesn't. Definitively, abortions remove material that is non-infectious. People can and do get sepsis from abortion as well as issues unrelated to pregnancy/abortion. Sepsis is/was widely decried as an adverse outcome of 'illegal' abortions. It can be treated concurrent with a pregnancy. JFC WTH is wrong with you people?
"It’s quite clear that in this case, timely abortion would have prevented the sepsis, sicko."
So it was medically necessary for the life of the mother? Got it. Law allows that.
Why is the doctor not being considered for loss of license for not doing their job?
And you have faith in "justice" "system" to deliver a just verdict on what is allowed? It's hard to judge the doctors for being reluctant to risk prison. Ultimately, they did act in time to save her life.
"And you have faith in “justice” “system” to deliver a just verdict on what is allowed? It’s hard to judge the doctors for being reluctant to risk prison. Ultimately, they did act in time to save her life."
Yes. Doctors do not have a problem with getting a good attorney. And doctors can choose to not treat any ailment to avoid "risking prison". Does not mean it is a competent use of their skills and their license to practice should be reviewed intensely.
doctors can choose to not treat any ailment to avoid “risking prison
Trying to think of any other common medical treatment that's illegal if done on the wrong day.
Wait. What? Since men are more likely to develop sepsis, this particular woman is incapable of developing sepsis?
Ugh. So dumb.
Ah, IC. You're, yet another dumb troll. Me asking Vernon a question is putting words in his mouth and arguing with voices in my own head, but you drawing inferences from statements I didn't make is rational. Got it.
Go on convincing people of your intelligence. I'd wish you the best of luck but luck's got nothing to do with it.
I think he's upset that men are more likely to get sepsis, so it's unfair that they can't get abortions, and since they can't, women shouldn't be allowed to either.
Close, I know this whole reading thing is tough for a lot of you. I ask a simple yes or no question and you people struggle with a 2 or 3 letter answer.
That said, equality under the law and in accordance with medical science her pregnancy or lack thereof had as much to do with her treatment for sepsis as any man's pregnancy would.
You think "presumption of innocence" applies to BACTERIA?!? Jesus.
You still wear a mask don't you?
Bill, I thought this absurd article was about how doctors were afraid of criminal prosecution for treating this condition. Try and keep up.
Why should I care if this activist cunt dies?
Oh good grief/
Because you're not a psychopath?
Based on that post, I think you may be assuming facts that are not in evidence.
Just asking.
You had me at "claims".
this story is clearly false.
Unfortunately, abortion activists have made me skeptical of these types of stories. They have a long and hallowed tradition, including but not limited to the Roe v Wade decision itself, of hiring actors to play a part, concocting fantastical situations rife with lies and deceit, and then trying to ram down national policy changes via emotional manipulation.
So when something like this happens, I'm prone to squint at the details, wondering how much of it is really true.
Also worth noting that activists do this everywhere else as well.
Sensational rape, homo/transphobic bigotry, and racist stories that turn out to be noble lies.
For me, the anti-abortion side has totally undermined their credibility. (Given the policies they're pushing, I refuse to call them "pro-life".) For years, most claimed that they only wanted reasonable limits, but it turns out their idea of "reasonable limits" was a lot like NYC's definition of "reasonable" gun control. They also claimed to want the issue returned to the states, but the ink on the decision doing just that was barely dry before they started calling for a national ban.
God wants women punished for enjoying sex. The anti-abortion fundamentalists consider themselves deputized to do that.
Yep! I've long defended sincere pro-lifers as holding a morally consistent view based on their understanding of when life begins. Then, overnight, far too many of those I thought were sincere gave me whiplash with "Roe has fallen! Now for birth control and gay marriage!!!" The pro-choicers were right: way too many of these people don't give a damn about unborn babies, they just like to tell other people what they can and can't do.
So, your imagination makes you hate pro-lifers?
Good consistency there, son.
Yeah, this story puts two common issues with miscarriage in one story, completely ignoring that these two issues aren’t related at all.
Incompetent cervix: woman’s body incapable of carrying a fetus to term, resulting in preterm delivery (or spontaneous abortion, based on what trimester it occurs in) of an underdeveloped, but otherwise healthy fetus.
Sepsis: typically, when there’s some malformation in fetal development, the fetus dies in utero and a cascade of hormonal events trigger contractions and labor to expel dead tissue. In rare circumstances, the body fails to trigger the miscarriage and D&C is necessary to remove the dead tissue to prevent infection. Infection that persists becomes septic.
It makes no sense that someone with an incompetent cervix would hold onto dead tissue long enough for sepsis to occur.
It also makes no sense that infection would occur if the baby were still alive. There are lies in this story because the details are incongruent with other details.
Thank you, doctor.
Yeah. There's no evidence outside of her pwn personal statements. I'm sorry she lost her baby. Terrible thing. But this entire article, and the People article from the morning links, is just a rehash of an essay she wrote for an activist rag. Bit Reason picks it up and uncritically runs with it as if it's fact when there's a whole LOT of reasons to be skeptical.
And Reason shouldn't be making excuses for doctors who would rather let people die than get sued.
But it seems that in states where abortion is banned, cautious physicians often delay abortions even when that delay places a woman's life in danger.
Or activist physicians that are hoping for a photo op.
As we’ve been told they are not stunts or photo ops but serious people starting serious discussions when they do it.
Often, supporters of anti-abortion legislation claim that anti-abortion laws like Texas'— with exceptions allowing abortion to save a woman's life—would allow abortions in cases like Zurawski's.
How does Europe handle this, what with all of their 12-15 week abortion bans?
They do not have abortion bans except Malta and Poland. The 12-15 week timeframes are for purely elective abortions on demand with NO doctor confirmation of medical necessity.
Literally picking at random:
While I'm sure that this wiki bullshit is very surface-scratching, it appears that abortions after 12-15 weeks (with some minor variations therein) where serial medical harm etc. have to be considered... this would be portrayed as "abortion bans" by the American Left... because the American left has said, in exactly so many words, that ANY restriction of abortion amounts to a ban
I am not in support of the specific Texas statute. But the timing literally isn't of matter here. If Texas adopted France's law, then after 14 weeks, the abortion would fall under a 'banned condition', and a woman with the serious health complication detailed above would then be... according to the narrative here, in question.
And see my comment below. Something smells off with this story.
She had what news stories are saying was declared an inviable or "non-viable" fetus. Where's the abortion angle, and more importantly, how is having a dead baby decaying in your womb not a serious threat to the health of the mother. Once again, I smell the strong whiff of activists floating trial balloons carefully chosen around "edge cases".
If Texas adopted France’s law, then after 14 weeks, the abortion would fall under a ‘banned condition’, and a woman with the serious health complication detailed above would then be… according to the narrative here, in question
France has not prosecuted any doctor for abortion and has no intention to. Stop pretending that Texas and France are even remotely similar re abortion. The only places in Europe that try to do the other stuff that Texas does - namely close down access to post- abortion on demand timeframe via means other than prosecution - are a couple of the heavily Catholic places - Italy, Ireland. Neither of them have shut down clinics but fewer doctors perform them for religious reasons. Both of them cover abortion via their medical insurance.
On demand abortion is generally not covered in European nations; only medically necessary abortions are covered.
The idea that European countries don’t prosecute illegal abortions is absurd; Germany, for example, prosecutes even advertising the availability of legal abortions. The reason you don’t see a lot of prosecutions of illegal abortions is because everybody knows the law and tries to obey it, including performing any abortions within the 12 week window. In fact, the number of abortion providers is falling rapidly, and abortions are not covered in regular medical school education anymore.
"...Stop pretending that Texas and France are even remotely similar re abortion..."
Stop pretending you have any knowledge regarding the issues you address, shit pile.
France has not prosecuted any doctor for abortion and has no intention to. Stop pretending that Texas and France are even remotely similar re abortion.
I didn't. You're literally putting words in my mouth. If a state has an abortion ban at 6 weeks, then any abortion in the 7th week is a statutory violation. If France has an abortion ban at 15 weeks, then an abortion in the 16th week is a statutory violation. How does the rest of Europe (almost all of which has bans after 12-15 weeks?
They don't have a ban then. They merely require a doctor then - which means nothing because the only option then is surgical abortion anyway.
Yes, they do have a ban. After 12-15 weeks, doctors will perform abortions only if medically necessary, a very limited set of circumstances. Some doctors and hospitals refuse to do it even then.
You just don’t know what you are talking about, JFree
Simple: they have much clearer exceptions for women's health and pregnancies that have no chance of producing a viable baby.
AUSTIN, TEXAS: A woman in Texas claims she nearly died of sepsis after doctors refused to remove an inviable fetus from her body.
Is there a trained medical professional who can explain to me how an inviable fetus remaining in the body would not be a threat to the mother’s health and safety?
Receiving the diagnosis that your pregnancy is nonviable means that the fetus will not develop into a baby and/or can not survive outside the womb.
Wait, why would this be considered an "abortion"?
My bet, she’s lying or misremembering about “inevitable” and she was probably told likely. Everyone’s behavior becomes rational if it’s likely but not certain, from the doctors not acting hastily and giving her criteria for action to her fear and even her rewrite of history. If the doctors did believe it was inevitable then their callousness is unconscionable.
"My bet, she’s lying"
Yup
And, again, same with sepsis. It's likely the pregnancy caused sepsis. It's also likely that it didn't. It's not very likely that pregnancy alone prevents the treatment of sepsis.
Thank you, doctor.
Because the fetus is not dead yet and even when it does die that does not mean the fetus is fully expelled. Sepsis is what happens when the fetus dies and starts rotting inside.
Do you need tiny hands to grasp at straws that thin, asshole?
Sepsis is what happens when the fetus dies and starts rotting inside.
Tell me you don’t know how pregnancy or sepsis works without telling me you don’t know how pregnancy or sepsis works…
JFree apparently thinks he didnt embarrass himself enough with his retard level medical knowledge around COVID, so he is going in for round 2
How does that make the fetus able to be born?
Can you cite what part of the law you cite as being true so we can more easily follow your cherry-picking?
So the dead fetus caused the sepsis? Why would that be an abortion?
Because a zealous fundamentalist prosecutor might say it is.
Thank you counselor.
Because the doctor has to perform the same surgery on that fetus as an abortion for any other fetus that age. And it is very possible that part of the fetus can die and start rotting while other parts are still alive (eg what sound like a heart beating). That is why doctors wait until after sepsis sets in because only then is it a threat to the mother's life
Sooo, if she was carrying a single baby, and not multiple, why didn't the doctor offer a cerclage as is standard procedure regarding a single fetus pregnancy when diagnosed with an incompetent cervix?
a doctor would typically offer a woman experiencing a second-trimester miscarriage several options to prevent infection, including labor induction or surgical evacuation—a standard abortion procedure.
What about a male with no pregnancy suffering from sepsis? SOL? Or are there quite successful treatments for sepsis that have nothing to do with pregnancy one way or the other and we're explicitly tying every infection and complication with pregnancy, no matter how minor, to an abortion?
I strongly suspect most of these cases are cooked up by activist doctors who want to provoke outrage...
No actual doctor who takes his oath seriously wouldn't help a woman he genuinely thought was dying regardless of the consequences, especially since the doctor would know they would be a hero if they were prosecuted in such cases
Exactly. Something close to ‘astroturfing’; claiming to be ‘the people’ oppressed by government edict, inventing implausible circumstances, hoping for CNN coverage and outrage among CNN’s remaining 5 viewers.
Added by edit:
And hoping against hope that sob stories like this might somehow keep droolin' Joe from being handed an election result his handlers really don't like.
Expect more of these sorts of vintage whine over the next couple of weeks.
That the story is from a feminist site --- I doubt it highly.
Seems incredulous she couldn't find a dozen doctors in Texas willing to take on what appears to be an extremely low or non existent risk under the law and perform the abortion.
Seems likely, in Austin, that she could shop around for a doctor willing to put two lives at risk so they could make a statement and use politics to shield themselves from any consequences. Maybe even find one that would guarantee a free mastectomy for her daughter should the abortion fail.
Again, two decades ago if you'd told me that doctors were committing medical malpractice and/or discriminating against a patient's family members against the patient's wishes I'd have told you you were crazy (and in the high profile political cases, the facts bore out my stance). Today, post-COVID and in the era of transgender idiocy, it's practically the default.
Usually with this stuff, when its too cute by half, its fabricated bullshit
Much like the Malta case. Where, rather than simply walking out of the hospital and taking a flight or ferry to Sicily (about 90 miles away,) they instead hired a PR firm.
They weren't allowed to fly because of her medical condition. Once the court cleared her, she flew to Spain
"They weren’t allowed to fly..."
Utter and complete horseshit.
Nobody prevented them from flying because they never actually tried to fly. And they certainly could have taken a ferry.
No, they ran to the media for "help." And when a court finally said "If you don't like it here nobody is stopping you from leaving" they realized Malta was not going to cave, so they left.
This latest story is even worse. The woman is a known liar who is trying to represent herself as a "pro-life Christian" even though here own social media history says otherwise.
There is a pretty straightforward decision pathway in the scenario described, and it sounds like the docs purposefully didn't follow it to turn this into a national story, or the patient misrepresented her situation (for example, its very rare that an OB tells you a miscarriage is inevitable...in a long time being involved in L/D, I have never heard one say this for someone with an incompetent cervix) or both.
Patients often misremember, misrepresent, or exaggerate their health statuses to embellish when talking about their medical problems. For example I cant tell you how many patient's/families have said the "oh I/they in no circumstances can have a breathing tube or be put to sleep" and then we very easily place a breathing tube, give them anesthesia for surgery, manage them, and easily wake them up. People like to make it sound like their 'thing' is way worse. The "inevitable" miscarriage line sounds like exactly that. OB's rarely if ever use this kind of language
And, again, this is across our great victimocracy.
'Little Jimmy is allergic to dairy and gluten. He can only eat meals specially cooked on a separate grill with utensils that didn't come into contact with wheat or dairy. The catering staff should have something on hand besides veggies that can accommodate him. If they don't, just send someone out to Culver's to get him a butter burger with no bun.'
Woe that the field where I harvest my fucks were full for all the women suffering difficult pregnancies but, alas...
You would think a publication taking this sort of editorial stance might demonstrate some concern over the chilling effect that defendants being held in solitary for over a year for the misdemeanor crime of 'parading' might have on free expression and the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances.
But, you'd only think that if you expected a mere minimum of intellectual honesty from them.
What this story amount to ,even as it is distressing, is repeating the claims a person made in an editorial in an activist publication.
The best course would be to perform journalism, and seek some minimum verification of the facts, as well as unbiased expert opinion.
Of course it is harder when someone's medical confidentiality is a factor. However, it should not be hard to find some OBs in Texas willing to review the basic claims as a hypothetical, and give their opinion of whether the claims seem believable.
"What this story amount to ,even as it is distressing, is repeating the claims a person made in an editorial in an activist publication.
The best course would be to perform journalism, and seek some minimum verification of the facts, as well as unbiased expert opinion."
The Kavanaugh debacle showed us how clearly partisan actors can get traction and major influence due to partisan outfits pushing their words as gospel when they were, in the most generous interpretation... shakey accusations with no evidence. Smolett was of course a more farcical example. But the media keeps taking these stories and running a full few football fields with them. They have a narrative to push, and damnit if rational thinking and actual evidence will get in the way of that!
The only point that needs to be considered here is that the decision of how to treat a medical condition that puts a woman at any significant risk should be only between competent medical professionals and the patient. A prosecutor should not have a say. If the law gives a prosecutor any ability to decide that the doctors chose wrong and then try and fine them, suspend their medical license, or put them in jail, then the law is fucking bullshit.
Good summary.
Well, that’s your opinion. Lots of people hold a different opinion. You’ll just have to learn to deal with that fact.
Yeah... Lots of people hold a different opinion about this ladies pregnancy.. And obviously sense nobody owns themselves anymore?? (Liberty) it's 'everyones' opinion that should dictate her pregnancy with those almighty Gov-GUNS! /s
I fail to see how 'others' opinions is of any legitimate concern in a persons PERSONAL life.
You must get permission of the [WE] mob for your personal Health!
Yeah; It's pretty disgusting how [WE] mob tyrannically dictative things are getting around here.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-GUN FORCED reproduction.
It really is that simple.
"Zurawski lives in Austin, making the nearest abortion clinic, in New Mexico, an eight-hour drive away."
Breaking news - there's this great new technology called "aeroplanes" which makes it quicker to get from place to place than in a car.
How dumb can the commentariat be.
The doctors don't make the decision that the abortion is too legally risky. Lawyers for the hospital make that decision, based on their reading of the law in question and how the fact pattern of the case fit that reading. The doctors just get told they can't do the procedure (until x occurs). Don't blame the doctors for choosing not to treat, blame the hospital administrators and their lawyers.
At the same time, that means an actual lawyer was making this decision. Regardless of how good or bad a lawyer they are (and I imagine the average lawyer employed by a hospital is more qualified than the average DA), if they can read the law to allow prosecution for a particular fact pattern, then so can another lawyer who can choose to bring a criminal case against the hospital (ie, the DA).
What you imagine is the intention of a particular exception doesn't matter. Any lack of clarity in the wording of the law will remain unresolved until a judge rules on the matter (and quite likely several courts), meaning there is inherent legal risk at the margins. That remains true even if you personally believe the law's exceptions should cover it - you don't get to decide what the best reading of the law is.
Given our legislators are a bunch of idiots at the best of times, your faith that they managed to properly qualify important exemptions to a criminal law carrying harsh penalties would be adorably naive if it wasn't so dangerous.
LOL.
It's a manufactured crisis by activists who are purposefully following an overly restrictive 'interpretation' of otherwise reasonable law in order to sow fear and drum up support from the gullible or already politically motivated.
This isn't over-lawyering, this is a media driven circus performance.
It is always telling to see who the writers here view critically or who they trust implicitly.
lmoa... sure, sure... Cause we all know everyone has complete and undeniable faith in our justice system. Not once has it ever prosecuted anyone wrongly... /s
Want to see a 'limited' government person turn into a worshiper of government? Just say the word 'abortion'.