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.”
Worth pointing out that she died in August of 2022* - not long after Roe v Wade was overturned. Apparently it took a while for the hoops to be jumped through to officially call this a preventable death.
So it’s very, very likely that many women have died as well.
I’m sure that was a typo and you meant 2022.
Yep you’re right
Well, what the fuck did everyone think would happen?
This is what everyone thought would happen. Both sides thought this would happen, one side wants it to happen.
this. this was the point.
When will a responsible politician be tried for murder? I know - never. But they should be. Because this shit is premeditated and with malicious, despicable intent.
I bet that’s far from the only case, unfortunately.
Just the first confirmed, and it’s from 2022. Her original appointment was the exact same day the local law went into effect.
Republicans “saving” lives again.
I guess that was God’s plan
punch the first person to suggest this was an unintended consequence of these laws.
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)
this is a self defense situation now
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
sorry you’re being downvoted, but i support scientific data AND putting religious people in asylums.
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
“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.
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.
