Vague, draconian anti-abortion laws are pushing doctors out of some states. Why even risk the legal, financial and career risks on problem pregnancies, even with assurances of allowable “exceptions”. Someone complains and, at best, a doctor needs to hire an attorney. Who needs that aggravation? Or risk?
This issue is not going away. And, ironically, it is the anti-abortion movement that will keep it alive and well for 2024. Keep it up folks. It’s a real vote getter. IMO
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Sounds like an excuse for an entirely economic decision.
They only delivered 265 babies in 2022 and only had 10 pediatric patients. It’s pretty clear the demographics there just don’t support a maternity department. But the PR guys find it easier to blame the change in the law than to say this town is too old to support maternity services at a profit.
Not offering maternity care will probably save them more on their malpractice insurance alone than they made on those 265 deliveries, not to mention staffing a department that is idle half the time.
LikeLike
Okay, explain away this . . .
https://tinyurl.com/4tvpnpbt
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t need to as it is irrelevant to the issue, but you knew that.
In any case, there isn’t enough information to comment on it rationally. For example, is there a difference in the age of first pregnancy? Drug use by pregnant mothers? STDs?
Absent a full study of the issue, there is no way to explain it. But a law that was not in effect at the time in a state with less than 1% of the US population is unlikely to be the cause.
LikeLike
Yes, I knew it was not directly relevant to the care of pregnant women in some God-forsaken and yet Theocratic state. I just thought you would enjoy another opportunity to explain away inconvenient truths about healthcare for women in this country. And sure enough, you tried.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, you claim there was adequate information presented to determine the cause?
LikeLike
“So, you claim there was adequate information presented to determine the cause?”
There is no one cause of this inconvenient truth. The article cites several factors. But, there is no plausible explanation for an order of magnitude difference in maternal death rate that does not involve our broken healthcare system’s failure to care for our people. As the author puts it . . . “they they died because they lived in a country where medicine is rationed and unaffordable.”
Also worth noting the article cites the effect of continuing systemic racism on women of color – you know – the simple truth that is too divisive to discuss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The author is wrong, or at best, makes an unsupported assumption,
LikeLike
Why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Too many variables unaccounted for, including those I mentioned.
He presumes the difference is in health care, but cultural variables, like age of earliest pregnancy, are overriding.
LikeLike
“The author is wrong . . .”
No, she is not. And your unwillingness to believe the truth is not evidence.
These are not small differences. And they are not just versus one country. Our maternal death rate is 10x not just Australia, but Austria, Israel, Japan, and Spain as well. There is no possibility that any “cultural factors” explain such a huge difference across any culture let alone such different cultures.
The obvious explanation for most of that difference is that all of those countries have universal affordable health care for everyone and we do not. Full stop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The doctors are leaving the state, including neo-natal pediatric specialists.
True, rural hospitals are hurting generally and closing. Another problem for the rural communities.
It may be a one off, but I doubt it. The new laws are vague and don’t allow physician decision making in late term problems without legal pitfalls.
The next hospital is 46 miles. But being in state, they have the same issues.
Like I said, however, the political reality of these laws is apparent. The vast majority was fine with Roe. So let the minority create some serious problems and see what happens.
Forcing women to carry brainless fetuses to term is not medicine or even respect for life. It is torture. See the 5 women suing Texas. All mothers, all wanted another child, all were put through needless pain because doctors/ hospitals didn’t want to risk uncertainty.
Ireland reversed its draconian anti-abortion laws a decade ago because of one woman who died because of doctors not wanting to risk their careers or legal entanglements. The outrage overrode the Church. It won’t be long before we get cases like that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It doesn’t matter.
It is quite clear that the hospital didn’t have the volume to support a maternity dept.
PR people lie, it’s their job. Numbers don’t.
LikeLike
Ok, so everyone is lying.
That settles it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Either that, or the change in the law is what is causing the hospital to close a department that is a money pit for the hospital, and but for the law they would have left it open until it dragged the whole hospital into bankruptcy.
LikeLike
I’m tempted to say, So what?
After all, it is not an established fact that abortion is a fundamental human right. Quite the contrary.
LikeLike
So what? So some woman needs to abort a fetus with no chance of survival beyond a few weeks and is told to tough it out. Or risks infection because of incomplete miscarriages.
Those are the “unintended” consequences of these laws.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Are you in favor of abortions that are not medically necessary? I ‘m sure that some laws are poorly written and have unintended consequences, but I can’t imagine that anti-abortion laws in general cause the problems you describe.
LikeLike
“Are you in favor of abortions that are not medically necessary?”
That is not the question. The question is . . . Are you in favor of the government forcing some people to follow the religious beliefs of other people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right. Let’s think like Humpty Dumpty.
LikeLike
“Let’s think like Humpty Dumpty.”
Again, your attempt at some sort of insult is too obscure to work. Whiff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are saying that you are ignorant?
LikeLike
“You are saying that you are ignorant?”
Sure.
I admit to being ignorant as to why you bring Humpty Dumpty into the conversation. Maybe it is something like Pepe the Frog that is part of your world but not mine?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then, for your edification, the reference is to the famous passage in Alice and Wonderland:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
LikeLike
“Then, for your edification . . .”
Okay. Thanks. Still a whiff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is control of your own body a fundamental right or is your body the property of the state? If Joe Biden needed a new kidney to survive could the state take yours to protect his life? After all, you could survive with one. Or maybe all he needed was a pint of your blood. Could the state force you to give it to him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Is control of your own body a fundamental right or is your body the property of the state?”
Does my control of my own body include the right to harm others? I think you frame the issue in a ham-fisted way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Does my control of my own body include the right to harm others? ”
Yes, you can harm them by denying them the resources of your body. If that is what you CHOOSE. And, if you want to talk about “others” and equate a fetus with a pregnant woman, do “others” have a right to suck your blood and tear your body apart if you CHOOSE to stop them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t want to talk about “others” and equate a fetus with a pregnant woman. As I said, I think you frame the issue in a ham-fisted way.
For example, you assert that human rights include the right to harm others. That’s a proposition I categorically reject.
LikeLike
“For example, you assert that human rights include the right to harm others. That’s a proposition I categorically reject.”
LOL!
No you do not “categorically reject” it. You have frequently asserted that there is a “natural right” of self defense when “others” threaten you with harm. Or even when they threaten your property. Nothing categorical there.
Well, a fetus threatens the pregnant woman with great harm. She has a “natural right” to defend herself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Well, a fetus threatens the pregnant woman with great harm. She has a ‘natural right’ to defend herself.”
Not every foetus does that. Which is why it is important to clarify whether you are trying to make a case for abortions that are not medically necessary. If that is what you are trying to do, I’m not interested.
LikeLike
“Not every foetus does that.”
That is absolutely ridiculous. The pain of childbirth alone refutes your statement. Then there is the significant risk of disfigurement and death in EVERY pregnancy.
I am not for abortions that are not medically necessary. Nor against them. I am for women deciding whether they want to continue an unwanted pregnancy or end it. For whatever reasons make sense to them. The police should not have a role of any kind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I am for women deciding whether they want to continue an unwanted pregnancy or end it.”
That is a morally repugnant concept.
LikeLike
“That is a morally repugnant concept.”
Maybe to you, but that is not the point. You do not get to use the police to force others to follow YOUR moral code. Nor me, mine. Accepting that your morals are not the last word on right and wrong is part of the price for living in a democratic republic and not a theocracy or dictatorship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet to others it isn’t. So you DO want to project your own personal morals and values on to others.
LikeLiked by 1 person