“At the time of the discussion, Farmer was medically stable, with some vaginal bleeding that was not heavy.
“Therefore contrary to the most appropriate management based (sic) my medical opinion, due to the legal language of MO law, we are unable to offer induction of labor at this time,” the report quotes the specialist as saying.”
So yes, the law did prevent an abortion and endangered her life.
She is suing because she expected an exception for herself.
It wasn’t just getting sued. Your healthcare provider would face a class B felony and likely revocation of their license prior to amendment 3 passing.
Missouri faces the nation's fourth-largest shortage of healthcare professionals, with 111 of 114 counties designated as health professional shortage areas. The state projects a deficit of 3,102 doctors by 2030, including 687 primary care providers. Hospital staffing remains strained, with a 17.4% vacancy rate for registered nurses, representing 6,982 unfilled positions. The crisis is compounded by Missouri exporting one-third of medical students to out-of-state residency programs.
It’s not good business for a portion of your workforce to end up in prison when you’re already in a shortage area.
It still matters because the Federal courts can set precedent that the Federal law (obviously, that’s how Federalism works) overrides state abortion bans.
It would be cool if she won, but I don’t think she will. Super easy to argue that her circumstances had not yet reached the level of “medical emergency”.
Doctors told her she would be unlikely to carry the child to term, and doing so increased her chances of infection or other severe outcome.
When the law is a witch hunt not based on science, doctors cannot operate based on their best judgement based on science. Real issues of “unlikely” and “increased her chances” aren’t the same things as immediate medical emergency: they prevent an immediate medical emergency. Any law restricting abortions to when they are “medically necessary” will always lead to cases where its denied until its immediately medically necessary, at which point it may be too late. This is a clear-cut example of what such laws will always do and doctors being forced to tiptoe around the feelings of fanatics instead of being able to practice medicine.
Some doctors would rather risk their patient dying than face legal issues. Many are leaving those states and forcing pregnancy centers to close due to lack of staff, which also affects the mortality of the women in those areas.
federal EMTALA requirements have not changed, and continue to require that healthcare professionals offer treatment, including abortion care, that the provider reasonably determines is necessary to stabilize the patient’s emergency medical condition
At the time of the discussion, Farmer was medically stable, with some vaginal bleeding that was not heavy.
Sounds like she was not experiencing an emergency medical condition that would have required stabilization. It could have become more severe, which explains why conventional care would have been abortion, but it was not, at the moment of presentation.
Sure would be nice if they would just let the physicians practice medicine, without having to second guess which law takes precedence.
That’s a misinterpretation of EMTALA and the words of the HHS secretary.
They didn’t say that they would protect providers who perform abortions. They said they would seek civil punishment for those that do not. That’s very different from providing protection.
It could be very easily argued that “could deteriorate rapidly” is not a medical emergency, and therefore does not meet the requirements of the MO or federal laws to allow for inducing labor or abortion.
Given the overzealous rhetoric from state officials, I understand the hospital and doctor’s reluctance to provide care. We are fucking ourselves.
This is not a medical error. EMTALA is not a protective law for healthcare facilities or professionals. The state can still prosecute based on their own laws, and in Texas, for example, performing an abortion can come with a lifetime sentence.
From the medical provider and hospitals standpoint, you are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. Perform an abortion and face criminal charges from the state or refrain and face civil charges from the fed.
If you had the choice to face a criminal charge (prison sentence) or a civil charge (fine), which would you pick?
Texas law imposes severe criminal penalties for performing abortions. Medical professionals who perform abortions face first-degree felony charges punishable by five years to life in prison if the procedure results in fetal death. Attempting or inducing an abortion is a second-degree felony, carrying two to20 years imprisonment. Additionally, providers face minimum civil penalties of $100,000per violation and mandatory revocation of their medical license.
Which federal law are you referring to? EMTALA does not supersede state law, nor does it prevent the state from pursuing criminal charges for abortion.
It’s unrealistic to expect a significant number of doctors to throw away their livelihoods and go to prison to prove a legal threat. Doctors are being advised by risk management divisions of the hospital to not even consider abortions in these cases (in certain states) because it means saying goodbye to your practice, your savings, and your family.
Texas successfully challenged EMTALA's application to abortion cases through a lawsuit in 2022. The 5th Circuit Court ruled that EMTALA does not mandate abortion care or override state law. Texas became the only state exempt from federal emergency care requirements for pregnant patients. Under Texas law, abortion is only permitted for "risk of death" rather than EMTALA's broader "serious jeopardy" to health standard
Tuesday’s ruling, authored by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, said the court “decline[d] to expand the scope of EMTALA.”
“We agree with the district court that EMTALA does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child,” Englehardt wrote. “EMTALA does not mandate medical treatments, let alone abortion care, nor does it preempt Texas law.”
EMTALA supercedes state law because it is federal law. This is standard legal doctrine.
Texas disagrees. Please see above source.
Nobody has been prosecuted for performing an abortion since the Dobbs decision. Hundreds of abortions have happened in Missouri since Dobbs, and nobody has been prosecuted there.
No one’s going to risk their livelihood on precedent. While legal precedent is important, it doesn’t provide meaningful reassurance when the stakes are this high.
Yeah but I can’t blame the doctors for refusing, when in doubt a right wing jury without medical training will decide if it was an emergency or not, and your freedom depends on their verdict.
There’s no guarantee they will be charged is not the same as there is a guarantee they will not be charged. And that is the issue, the hospitals were directly threatened by republicans with jail time, and contradictory statements, as proof when she reached out to get clarification from the governor even he noped out when it mattered. Also remember that the doctors do not run the hospital, administrators and bean counters do.
There only has to be the threat. Because as long as hospitals are afraid to perform abortions the republicans win… well “win” in this case. We are just people arguing could have should have, when the hospital doctors recommended it, but the hospital with their lawyers and the fact they have been doing this as a profession was not as convinced as you seem to be.
Besides, is your argument the hospital was out to kill this lady specifically?
Doctors swear an oath, “first, do no harm.” So yes we can blame the doctors!
Doctors are supposed to behave ethically regardless of the law. This is not a new thing! Doctors providing appropriate treatment despite the law is a very fucking long tradition in medicine.
What defines a medical emergency in rhe eyes of the law? How many hospitals are going to perform an abortion they deem a medical emergency only to be potentially sued by an AG who disagrees that it was medically necessary?
What hospital is going to test the boundaries of what immediate or imminent risk to life in the eyes of the law? Especially with any government official salivating at the chance to punish any abortion care.
It’s not even close to the same. Abortion laws shouldn’t exist in the first place. The decision should be left up to the woman alone. All this law is doing is making providers worry about the consequences of performing one. A law against theft deters theft… There is a purpose to that.
If a fetus is a “blob,” so are born babies, children, and adults.
No, those are fully formed individuals that can survive on their own if separated from the mother. The fetus is surviving off it’s mother’s body. Stealing her nutrients. The only thing separating it from fitting the definition of a parasite is the “different species” caveat.
If she received immediate care, she would no longer be at risk. In the same way if you take drugs for high cholesterol, you will no longer be at risk for a heart attack.
Stopping risk is preventative care, not an immediate life threat.
Removed by mod
From your link:
“At the time of the discussion, Farmer was medically stable, with some vaginal bleeding that was not heavy. “Therefore contrary to the most appropriate management based (sic) my medical opinion, due to the legal language of MO law, we are unable to offer induction of labor at this time,” the report quotes the specialist as saying.”
So yes, the law did prevent an abortion and endangered her life.
She is suing because she expected an exception for herself.
Removed by mod
Hospitals lawyers “we’d rather be maybe sued by the state than definitely sued and shut down”
Is how this plays out in real life.
It wasn’t just getting sued. Your healthcare provider would face a class B felony and likely revocation of their license prior to amendment 3 passing.
Missouri faces the nation's fourth-largest shortage of healthcare professionals, with 111 of 114 counties designated as health professional shortage areas. The state projects a deficit of 3,102 doctors by 2030, including 687 primary care providers. Hospital staffing remains strained, with a 17.4% vacancy rate for registered nurses, representing 6,982 unfilled positions. The crisis is compounded by Missouri exporting one-third of medical students to out-of-state residency programs.It’s not good business for a portion of your workforce to end up in prison when you’re already in a shortage area.
Removed by mod
It doesn’t really matter since the right to abortions was added to the state constitution.
It still matters because the Federal courts can set precedent that the Federal law (obviously, that’s how Federalism works) overrides state abortion bans.
Removed by mod
As your own link said, they didn’t break the law.
She was stable. The law says the hospital had to wait until she was in danger.
A lawsuit from a pro lifer who is suing because she wanted an abortion isn’t proof they broke the law.
It would be cool if she won, but I don’t think she will. Super easy to argue that her circumstances had not yet reached the level of “medical emergency”.
So fucked are we
Removed by mod
When the law is a witch hunt not based on science, doctors cannot operate based on their best judgement based on science. Real issues of “unlikely” and “increased her chances” aren’t the same things as immediate medical emergency: they prevent an immediate medical emergency. Any law restricting abortions to when they are “medically necessary” will always lead to cases where its denied until its immediately medically necessary, at which point it may be too late. This is a clear-cut example of what such laws will always do and doctors being forced to tiptoe around the feelings of fanatics instead of being able to practice medicine.
Removed by mod
Women are dying because doctors aren’t providing medically necessary care.
Some doctors would rather risk their patient dying than face legal issues. Many are leaving those states and forcing pregnancy centers to close due to lack of staff, which also affects the mortality of the women in those areas.
In this case, the legal issue is a felony and potentially life in prison.
Removed by mod
Sounds like she was not experiencing an emergency medical condition that would have required stabilization. It could have become more severe, which explains why conventional care would have been abortion, but it was not, at the moment of presentation.
Sure would be nice if they would just let the physicians practice medicine, without having to second guess which law takes precedence.
Removed by mod
In your opinion. Unless you’re a Missouri judge, that opinion is not useful.
Removed by mod
That’s a misinterpretation of EMTALA and the words of the HHS secretary.
They didn’t say that they would protect providers who perform abortions. They said they would seek civil punishment for those that do not. That’s very different from providing protection.
See my comment above for more details.
Removed by mod
It could be very easily argued that “could deteriorate rapidly” is not a medical emergency, and therefore does not meet the requirements of the MO or federal laws to allow for inducing labor or abortion.
Given the overzealous rhetoric from state officials, I understand the hospital and doctor’s reluctance to provide care. We are fucking ourselves.
Removed by mod
It’s has the intended teeth; health care for women denied yet again.
Removed by mod
This is not a medical error. EMTALA is not a protective law for healthcare facilities or professionals. The state can still prosecute based on their own laws, and in Texas, for example, performing an abortion can come with a lifetime sentence.
From the medical provider and hospitals standpoint, you are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. Perform an abortion and face criminal charges from the state or refrain and face civil charges from the fed.
If you had the choice to face a criminal charge (prison sentence) or a civil charge (fine), which would you pick?
Texas law imposes severe criminal penalties for performing abortions. Medical professionals who perform abortions face first-degree felony charges punishable by five years to life in prison if the procedure results in fetal death. Attempting or inducing an abortion is a second-degree felony, carrying two to 20 years imprisonment. Additionally, providers face minimum civil penalties of $100,000 per violation and mandatory revocation of their medical license.Removed by mod
Which federal law are you referring to? EMTALA does not supersede state law, nor does it prevent the state from pursuing criminal charges for abortion.
It’s unrealistic to expect a significant number of doctors to throw away their livelihoods and go to prison to prove a legal threat. Doctors are being advised by risk management divisions of the hospital to not even consider abortions in these cases (in certain states) because it means saying goodbye to your practice, your savings, and your family.
Texas successfully challenged EMTALA's application to abortion cases through a lawsuit in 2022. The 5th Circuit Court ruled that EMTALA does not mandate abortion care or override state law. Texas became the only state exempt from federal emergency care requirements for pregnant patients. Under Texas law, abortion is only permitted for "risk of death" rather than EMTALA's broader "serious jeopardy" to health standardhttps://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/02/texas-abortion-fifth-circuit/
Removed by mod
Texas disagrees. Please see above source.
No one’s going to risk their livelihood on precedent. While legal precedent is important, it doesn’t provide meaningful reassurance when the stakes are this high.
Do you have any specific examples of such cases?
Removed by mod
Yeah but I can’t blame the doctors for refusing, when in doubt a right wing jury without medical training will decide if it was an emergency or not, and your freedom depends on their verdict.
Removed by mod
But that is the explicit threat. That is what law makers are saying they are setting as precedent.
Removed by mod
There’s no guarantee they will be charged is not the same as there is a guarantee they will not be charged. And that is the issue, the hospitals were directly threatened by republicans with jail time, and contradictory statements, as proof when she reached out to get clarification from the governor even he noped out when it mattered. Also remember that the doctors do not run the hospital, administrators and bean counters do.
Removed by mod
There only has to be the threat. Because as long as hospitals are afraid to perform abortions the republicans win… well “win” in this case. We are just people arguing could have should have, when the hospital doctors recommended it, but the hospital with their lawyers and the fact they have been doing this as a profession was not as convinced as you seem to be.
Besides, is your argument the hospital was out to kill this lady specifically?
Removed by mod
Doctors swear an oath, “first, do no harm.” So yes we can blame the doctors!
Doctors are supposed to behave ethically regardless of the law. This is not a new thing! Doctors providing appropriate treatment despite the law is a very fucking long tradition in medicine.
It isn’t. Name one time that happened.
“Do no harm” doesn’t mean “risk your livelihood and freedom to perform an operation that a patient can get elsewhere”.
Just one? Sherwin Raymond: https://newrepublic.com/article/167633/roe-wade-abortion-doctors-dobbs-prison
…but doctors have been imprisoned or killed for treating the “enemy” since, well, doctors.
What defines a medical emergency in rhe eyes of the law? How many hospitals are going to perform an abortion they deem a medical emergency only to be potentially sued by an AG who disagrees that it was medically necessary?
Removed by mod
What hospital is going to test the boundaries of what immediate or imminent risk to life in the eyes of the law? Especially with any government official salivating at the chance to punish any abortion care.
Removed by mod
So if the law didn’t exist there’d be nothing to misjudged…
Removed by mod
It’s not even close to the same. Abortion laws shouldn’t exist in the first place. The decision should be left up to the woman alone. All this law is doing is making providers worry about the consequences of performing one. A law against theft deters theft… There is a purpose to that.
Removed by mod
It’s not a baby. It’s a blob. It has no sentience and the mother doesn’t want it in her body. It’s basically a parasite.
Removed by mod
No one should be forced to carry a fetus. End of story
Removed by mod
No, those are fully formed individuals that can survive on their own if separated from the mother. The fetus is surviving off it’s mother’s body. Stealing her nutrients. The only thing separating it from fitting the definition of a parasite is the “different species” caveat.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
“At risk” isn’t an emergency. All pregnancies have risk to the life of the mother.
An abortion was proactive healthcare. The law prevents it.
Removed by mod
You again quoted “at risk”. High blood pressure is “at risk”. It’s not an immediate life threatening condition requiring surgery.
She wanted an early abortion but didn’t get it because she voted against it.
Removed by mod
If she received immediate care, she would no longer be at risk. In the same way if you take drugs for high cholesterol, you will no longer be at risk for a heart attack.
Stopping risk is preventative care, not an immediate life threat.
Removed by mod