Every single judge that ruled on this was appointed by a Republican. If something like this is going to happen (and it was) I guess I’m grateful(?) that it’s happening 7 months before an election that is going to largely be fought over reproductive rights.
Hopefully the referendum gets on the ballot for November.
1 Like
Had a scary case today. Saw a woman with diffuse belly pain. Exam was pain everywhere kind of exam, typically that is something less serious. Order some meds, labs and CT scan. Patient says her period has been irregular lately, having some bleeding every day. She’s older so this isn’t super concerning.
Patient then passes out. That happens, she gets better, but her blood pressure is soft. Start some fluids. I grab an ultrasound and see blood everywhere in her abdomen. Go to her pelvis and sure enough, there’s a fetus with a heart beat, but not in the uterus. It’s an ectopic. Patient starts getting more confused, give two units of blood, starts doing a lot better.
Patient goes to the OR, they report 2L of blood loss. (Note: this is always too low - you have about 5L of blood). Luckily this was in california, because I’m certain that this patient would have been held up from going to the OR because of that heartbeat. Even though most of the state laws are written in such a way that ectopics aren’t covered, doctors are afraid of going to prison and shit, so stuff like this gets delayed.
7 Likes
Here’s the kind of stuff Texas is blaming doctors for:
Obviously, I think what TX is doing is awful, but I have a hard time arguing with the logic of above.
I haven’t been following the specific case, but it sounds like the court is saying abortion would have been fine in this spot
Now this point is fairly obvious, so plaintiffs must have argued against it. What exactly was their argument?
I think the issue is, you’re forcing doctors to risk their medical license and freedom with no direct personal benefit to doing so. Anytime they make the right call, and the authorities agree with them, nothing happens. Anytime the make the right call, and the authorities disagree with them, they are at great financial and legal risk. Anytime the make the wrong call, likewise.
Meanwhile the law is vague, and basically comes down to their own opinion. So it seems they are (predictably) being very cautious. It’s also pretty obvious IMO that for extreme right wing conservatives this is all a feature, not a bug.
Like, what is the “substantial impairment of a major bodily function?” Heart, lungs, brain, those all seem obvious. Of course, then it gets into, what is substantial? But, we’ll shelve that one. Is the ability to procreate in the future a “major bodily function?” Most of us would say, “Yeah, that’s a pretty fucking big bodily function.” But, it’s not necessary to survive and function day to day.
2 Likes
It seems like the only real difference between the original law and what was overturned was the part about fetus having a condition making the fetus unlikely to survive. The rest of it seems approximately the same.
This:
is very different from:
The simple part is you can’t abort a fetus that won’t survive the pregnancy - which opens the door to all sorts of complications and suffering. Second, compare the language:
if in their “good faith judgment and in consultation with the pregnant person” it would be medically unsafe for a woman to continue a pregnancy
vs
if in the “reasonable medical judgment” of a doctor a woman faces “risk of death” or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
In the first one, medically unsafe could mean losing minor bodily functions or perhaps needless pain and suffering. In the second, she has to face the risk of death or whatever “substantial” impairment of a “major bodily function” is - and the law doesn’t seem to say.
In the first one it’s a “good faith judgment” and in the second it’s a “reasonable medical judgment.” The first one sounds harder to question after the fact, it’s a lot like when a cop can kill someone and say “I feared for my life,” and it’s an auto get out of jail free card. The doctor can say, “I made a good faith judgment that she faced… etc,” and it’s hard to question. In the second, all you need is a crazy right wing doctor to testify that it wasn’t a “reasonable medical judgment” that the woman faced the “risk of death” and now we’re off to the races. Who gets to say what a reasonable medical judgment is? How imminent does death have to be for the risk of death to be faced? What is a substantial impairment of a major bodily function?
It’s easy to fall into the trap of viewing this all through good faith, reasonable people interpreting it, etc. The reality is the crazy people are going to interpret it in the most extreme anti-abortion way and go after doctors, and the doctors have to fearfully operate in that environment.
Yeah, this is what it comes down to and while the two are different, I don’t think they’re that different.
They aren’t that different. They may not be different at all.
But they are both vague enough that they still require doctors, etc. to make a judgment call that weighs what is best for the patient against what may be prosecutable.
1 Like
I agree with this, which is why I think this distinction isn’t a big deal. Both versions suck.
Yeah this is the issue, and when doctors (or more often the administrators of medical systems) know that there are psychos out there that will sue them/threaten their medical licenses at the drop of a hat, they’re at least going to be very cautious about their own liability.
Is the Texas bounty law still in effect on top of the state’s abortion ban? I wonder if it’s the case that a perfectly legal abortion per Texas law could still result in some rando suing the doctor and anyone involved.
Yes, not only that, even if that particular law goes away, the remaining ban is still enforced by prosecutors, not by doctors. What a doctor says is ultimately of very little importance if the biggest asshole prosecutor in the state says that the abortion wasn’t necessary at that point.
1 Like
And given current political environment doctors know there sleazy psycho right wing nut job “medical experts” out there who would love to testify to help lock up someone for making a reasonable call
1 Like