"Except to save the life of a pregnant person" - how true is that really?

The plain text of the exception in the law won’t matter as much as the incentive structures that are set up. Doctors will have to stay well away from whatever the line is, and the more likely they are to be investigated and the more severe the potential punishments are, the farther away they’ll have to stay.

If performing the abortion means the doctor could go to prison for life, more women will die than in a state with a seemingly identical abortion law but where violations are regulatory infractions with fines and nasty notes in files.

Yes, many women have had that outcome - the condition was caught early enough and both mother and child survived and that’s fantastic.

But what if the child didn’t survive - would the doctor then be accused of performing a late-term abortion? I think that could happen, even if attempts were made to try to save the baby.

I do, too. That among the reasons these laws are so scary.

Once upon a time, the Doctors were terrified to treat Stalin for fear of what might happen if he died (or even if he didn’t). Today, every red state legislator is Stalin, and every doctor is terrified to treat women because of them.

Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate for governor here in PA is opposed to abortion even in the case of a woman’s life being in danger.

This guy scares the shit out of me.

(Fortunately, his extreme views seem to be hurting him, and I think he’s going to lose. crosses fingers)

The federal government issued guidelines on EMTALA and emergency abortion obligations today. Potentially, hospitals can lose Medicare reimbursements for not maintaining the skills and equipment, and doctors can lose their licenses and their malpractice lawsuits.

We’ll have to see about the real-world outcome.

Here’s a link to a news article about this (one example among any number of stories that are out there now):

A friend of mine is diabetic, has been all her life. It was recommended to her that she not get pregnant, as that could be dangerous to her, and to any potential baby.

She really wanted a child, though, and had a baby with her husband. She was extremely careful, meticulous about diet and exercises, checking her blood sugar multiple times a day. She had a healthy baby.

If she had ended up pregnant, and didn’t want to take the risk, a risk most doctors advised her not to take, would she have been allowed to have an abortion under the laws these states are imposing?

My sister knew a woman who had Lupus and was also recommended not to get pregnant, but she really wanted a baby of her own. She started having severe issues starting about midway through her pregnancy. They did a C-section as soon as they possibly could, but she died. The baby died a day after she did. It’s a real risk.

I respect a woman’s right to take that risk. But it needs to be her decision.

When we have politicians deciding where that line is, people are going to end up dying for someone else’s ideology.

I felt she was foolish. She had more risk factors than a diabetic woman would have. Her husband was devastated.

But, yes, it was her choice.