Pro-abortion report alleges women suffering health ‘complications’ in red states
Breccan F. Thies
Pro-abortion researchers released a report Tuesday detailing health “complications” in states that restricted abortion after the overturn of Roe v. Wade based on unverified and anonymous accounts from healthcare providers.
The report, which refers to women as “people with the capacity for pregnancy,” was completed by pro-abortion groups at the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Texas at Austin. It was also funded by pro-abortion organizations.
Video Embed
SOCIAL SECURITY UPDATE: COLA IN 2024 COULD BE JUST 3.1%, FORECAST SAYS
“The post-Dobbs laws and their interpretations altered the standard of care across these scenarios in ways that contributed to delays, worsened health outcomes, and increased the cost and logistic complexity of care,” the study claims. “Clinicians reported their ‘hands were tied,’ making it impossible for them to provide treatment sooner.”
The study “solicited narratives” from anonymous, self-selected abortion providers who described complications ranging from delayed care to severe fetal anomalies, told in the context of new abortion restrictions being the underlying factor in doctors not being able to provide the pre-Dobbs “standard of care.”
The funding, authorship, and methodology of the report present significant red flags, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists told the Washington Examiner.
“This report contains 50 unverified examples and does not evaluate the significant bias of its authors or the potential for bias amongst the respondents,” the group said. “Because it does not give any meaningful statistics, we cannot gauge how prevalent the stories recounted in the study are or how generalizable its conclusions are.”
“It is vitally important that patients in every state receive the highest quality obstetric care; no patient should be turned away,” the organization continued. “But no state’s abortion law prevents this from happening; rather, the issue is that some doctors need clarification regarding the laws.”
To the extent that there is confusion among providers about what the law in each state means, Dr. Ingrid Skop, who has been a practicing OB-GYN for over 25 years, told the Washington Examiner, “Pro-abortion activist journalists and pro-abortion medical organizations have intentionally confused obstetricians about abortion restrictions in many states. Every state law allows an exception if, in the physician’s ‘reasonable medical judgment,’ an abortion is required to save a mother’s life.”
Skop, who is also vice president and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said that in her experience, she has “not found it necessary to perform a dismemberment dilation and evacuation abortion in order to treat life-threatening pregnancy complications.”
“I have always been willing to intervene when a pregnancy complication posed a threat to a mother’s life,” she continued. “Fortunately, these rare, heartbreaking circumstances usually occur in the second half of pregnancy, when I can separate a mother and her unborn child by induced labor or cesarean section, protecting the mother, and usually saving the child’s life also.”
One “glaring error” both AAPLOG and Skop pointed out was the report’s characterization of the preterm premature rupture of membranes, in which a woman’s water breaks before the baby can survive on its own outside the womb. This can quickly progress to a serious infection for the mother, and the prognosis for the baby’s survival is poor, Skop said.
According to the study, these diagnoses were the most commonly reported complication among respondents. It states that, prior to Dobbs, patients would have “immediately” been offered an option for a dilation and evacuation or induction termination.
“In most of the narratives,” the report states, “patients were instead sent home after rupture of membranes was confirmed and told to return when labor started or when they experienced signs of infection.”
Skop explained that there have been instances in which “doctors wait until women became very sick before intervening,” despite the fact that the Dobbs decision “doesn’t impact how we provide emergency care.”
Rather, Skop said, the inaction is not connected to state law and, “in many circumstances, may constitute medical malpractice.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
It is common for doctors to seek legal clarification on standards of care from medical boards and hospital administration, Skop explained, but “sadly, some ideologically pro-abortion driven medical boards, hospital systems, and bureaucracies have remained uncharacteristically silent, and as a result of their silence, women are being harmed.”
The AAPLOG pointed out that where the authors of the study highlight a lack of guidance for physicians, their organization “has already created such guidelines, and would encourage any physicians who feel uncertain about practicing under their state’s abortion laws take advantage of them.”