The ravages of a predictable but terrible scourge are only just beginning to be felt in the United States, as doctors are reluctant to provide adequate care to women who have miscarriages for fear of being accused of performing a abortion.
the New York Times reported on Sunday the story of a woman who was denied emergency care after a miscarriage in Texas. The hospital asked her to come back only if “she was bleeding so badly that she filled more than one diaper in an hour.” This woman’s case is far from isolated, given the punitive laws targeting doctors who perform abortions.
In Texas, “restitution” of up to $10,000 is available to people who start legal proceedings against someone who allegedly performed an abortion. In Missouri, anyone who performs an abortion faces between five and 15 years in prison. And last May in Louisiana, a committee of the House of Representatives approved a bill that would have allowed abortion to be considered homicide and women who resorted to it to be prosecuted accordingly. The bill ultimately died on the order paper after a majority of the House opposed it.
But if women are not yet considered criminals for having an abortion, the doctors who perform them are in several states and fear prison. This has the effect of making them reluctant to provide adequate medical care to women who miscarry.
“There is no difference between medical care for a miscarriage and that for an abortion,” confirms Dr. Geneviève Bois, who is an assistant clinical professor of medicine at the University of Montreal and who performs abortions. “For example, if the pregnancy stops developing but the miscarriage doesn’t happen, it’s treated exactly like a medical abortion,” she says. Or you can do it by aspiration, like a medical abortion. »
Psychological distress and mortality
Dr. Monica Saxena, an emergency physician who practices in California, sees firsthand the disastrous effects of new restrictions in anti-abortion laws. “Even if the pregnancy is not viable, some states with restrictive abortion laws prohibit surgery unless the heart activity of the fetus is undetectable,” she explains. Joined by the To have toit specifies that the delays resulting from this prohibition may result in “hemorrhages, infections or sepsis which can cause death”.
Although she does not have to negotiate this political interference in the medical field, DD Saxena points out that the University of California at Los Angeles estimates that between 8,000 and 16,000 women will travel to California each year to obtain an abortion. This will therefore increase the number of female patients in the state.
“Anti-abortion laws were not created using medical evidence and they interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. The consequence is that they increase the morbidity and mortality of pregnant people,” she condemns.
The DD Bois, for his part, recalls the psychological effects that the absence of appropriate obstetrical care can have. “It creates a lot of psychological distress. People with a uterus are placed in a state of constant uncertainty,” she notes.
The existence of this legal vagueness therefore lengthens the delays for people who may need emergency care while creating a climate of suspicion and restraint among health professionals. All this without taking into account the real needs of the patient.
“In the end, being pregnant is ten to 100 times more dangerous than getting an abortion, recalls the DD Wood. Being pregnant is always in danger. »