this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024

1006 points (99.0% liked)

News

23259 readers

3404 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. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1006

A Georgia woman has died after an abortion ban delayed lifesaving care (www.motherjones.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

108 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Amber Nicole Thurman's death from an infection in 2022 is believed to be the first confirmed maternal fatality linked to post-Roe bans.

Reproductive justice advocates have been warning for more than two years that the end of Roe v. Wade would lead to surge in maternal mortality among patients denied abortion care---and that the increase was likely to be greatest among low-income women of color. Now, a new report by ProPublica has uncovered the first such verified death. A 28-year-old medical assistant and Black single mother in Georgia died from a severe infection after a hospital delayed a routine medical procedure that had been outlawed under that state's six-week abortion ban.

Amber Nicole Thurman's death, in August 2022, was officially deemed "preventable" by a state committee tasked with reviewing pregnancy-related deaths. Thurman's case is the first time a preventable abortion-related death has come to public attention since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, ProPublica's Kavitha Surana reported.

Now, “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of the abortion-rights group Reproductive Freedom for All, during a call with media. “It cannot go on.”

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

This may be the first confirmed case, but it's probably not a good idea to make it the poster case for pro-choice. Let's look at the facts:

She was pregnant with twins, and wanted an abortion.
She couldn't legally do it in her home state Georgia, so she had to travel to North Carolina and get abortion pills there.
A few days later, when she was already back home, she started to suffer from severe complications.
The doctors in Georgia could not legally perform the procedure that could have saved her life - a surgical removal of what remained of the fetus - because it was to close to abortion.

The article says the clinic in North Carolina could have performed that procedure, but does not state why she was not brought there. Maybe her condition was too bad for the long travel? Maybe she was evacuated to the nearest hospital (a decision which does, generally, make a lot of sense) which could not have signed her away for an illegal (by Georgian law) operation outstate? Maybe it was medically and legally possible to drive/fly her there, but it was too expensive for her? Either way - it is clear that the ban on abortions in Georgia (made possible "thanks" to the Roe vs Wade overruling) is the direct reason why she could not get the treatment which could have save her life.

BUT!

The pro-life camp can easily pin this on the abortion pills, claiming that a nation-wide abortion bad would have prevented her from receiving them and therefore would have prevented her death (and the aborted twins' death. They won't forget to include that)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Working as designed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

punch the first person to suggest this was an unintended consequence of these laws.

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

Republicans "saving" lives again.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

this is a self defense situation now

[+] [email protected] -18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I don't want anyone to interpret this to mean that I think it was in any way OK that this woman died, but I do want to point out what I see as an objective bias here.

According to the National Libary of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554338/

108 women died from complications related to legal abortions during a 12 year period between 1998 and 2010, for an average of 9 per year. Where are these stories on the front page?

This is a story that is posted to elicit an emotional reaction rather than a honest attempt to examine whether there is actual recorded medical evidence that more women are dying as a result of this policy.

Edit:

Post citing scientific data -11.
"Religious people should be locked in asylums" +10.

Says a lot about this community.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

sorry you're being downvoted, but i support scientific data AND putting religious people in asylums.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I could care less about being downvoted, but it made me realize that even people who claim to be interested in objective truth and facts are no different than the religious people who they mock for ignoring scientific evidence for things like global warming. Everyone just wants to reaffirm what they already believe.

"Still a man, he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" -Paul Simon

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Okay, I normally try not to be this guy, but in this particular situation, I believe a little pedantry is called for. You mean that you couldn't care less. If you could care less, that means you do care at least a little bit, which is not the point you're trying to make.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

“Still a man, he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” -Paul Simon

I think you need to heed your own advice based on how this discussion has gone.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

On the one hand, you have some women dying of complications arising from an elective procedure that they chose to have, based either on medical necessity or other factors. On the other hand you have a woman in need of medical care that she wished to have, and was denied, due to her reproductive autonomy being denied, then dying as a result.

Yet you have a hard time distinguishing what makes these things different?

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

No, what I have a problem with is using a sample size of 1 as evidence of an epidemic and the perception that no women die from legal abortion procedures.

Also, from the report: "In 20 of the 108 cases, the abortion was performed as a result of a severe medical condition where continuation of the pregnancy threatened the woman’s life."

I point this out because another misconception is that you can always save the woman's life with an abortion if it is threatened by the pregnancy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

and the perception that no women die from legal abortion procedures.

I don't know anyone who has edit: [ever expressed] that perception. Anecdotal I know, but I'm skeptical it's a common belief among adults of voting age.

using a sample size of 1 as evidence of an epidemic

I don't see that word, nor any language that conveys that impression in the article.

I do see this:

At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories.

That seems pretty straightforward and unsensationalized to me.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It is literally the highlighted quote in the article: “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people.”

This is true as evidenced by the story, but what is also true is that abortions also kill people. So the question should be is it a net positive or a net negative? I don't see this being examined in any objective and scientific way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don’t see this being examined in any objective and scientific way.

What would be scientific would be to allow women and their doctors to evaluate those risks together and make the decision without Republican lawmakers continuing to try to insert themselves in between. Sorry if that's too emotional.

I'm also quite sure there are scientific journal papers that cover this. I feel like you are expecting an awful lot from an article about a specific event on politico.

It is literally the highlighted quote in the article: “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people.”

For someone who complains about others not being objective, I find it unexpected that this is what you would quote to support this assertion by you:

using a sample size of 1 as evidence of an epidemic

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is kind of just a bad argument.

Nobody is arguing that an abortion can save a woman from all consequences.

Nobody is arguing that death is impossible as a result of abortion.

But when somebody dies because something prevented them from getting a procedure that would have been highly likely to save them, that doesn't come into conflict with the possibility of death from the procedure. It's a matter of personal choice.

Especially considering the maternal mortality rate (# of deaths per 100,000 live births) is 17.4, while the case fatality rate for abortions (# of deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions) is just 0.45

Now imagine how much higher that rate gets when abortions are performed illegally because legislation like this stops safe abortions from being possible, without curbing demand.

Yes, people die from abortions. Yes, people die from pregnancy. Yes, this woman could have died from the abortion procedure even if she was able to get it.

But her chance of death was significantly lower if she had been capable of getting an abortion, which she was not.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

^ This is the only attempt at an objective argument in this entire thread and it is not the argument presented by the OPs story, which was the point I was trying to make.

Maternal mortality includes abortions though: A maternal death is defined by the World Health Organization as “the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Hey, I actually missed that part. (I assumed it was deaths relating to the pregnancy itself, not including additional procedures like abortions)

Still, 17.4 - 0.45 = 16.95, which is still substantially higher than the case fatality rate of abortion-related fatalities alone.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago

Cause of death; infection, conservatism

load more comments