Her pregnancy was non-viable and her life was at risk but Oklahoma law prevented an abortion
Her pregnancy was non-viable and her life was at risk but Oklahoma law prevented an abortion
Fourteen weeks into her pregnancy, Magon Hoffman found out she had a life-threatening blood clot. Six weeks later she learned that her fetus, developing without a skull, had no chance of survival. She had to travel to New Mexico for care.
You're viewing a single thread.
“The doctor’s judgment of non-viable was likely correct, but sometimes you hear that physicians give a horrible report and then it turns out expectedly better, so there’s always that risk,” Olsen said. “The doctor needs to do all he can to preserve the life of both of them.”
So this politician is second guessing the doctor because "it might have turned out that the doctor was wrong." In other words, doctors' expertise and judgement means nothing if someone with no medical training at all is able to say "but maybe everything will be fine."
As horrible as it is, I don't blame the doctors and hospitals for being scared to perform abortions under these laws. They're tailored to give the appearance of having "life of the mother" exceptions while allowing every case to be second guessed by anyone with zero medical expertise. And if a judge sides with the zero medical expertise individual, then the hospital/doctor could be on the hook for huge fines or even prison time.
All while women suffer and die because life saving treatment is being denied thanks to "we need to think of the fetus' potential life more than the woman's life."
I mean the US has been fine with letting insurance companies second guess doctor's decisions forever why not governments too.
This is disingenuous at best. While insurance companies may not offer to pay for "unnecessary" services, they also do not actively prevent doctors from doing them. Sure, someone might go bankrupt because of medical debt, but they aren't dying and no doctors are going to prison for doing what they think is in the best interest of the patient.
So what the government is doing here is more malicious than what insurance companies routinely do.
No they just actively decide not to pay for them which in America is basically the same as a denial of treatment. When people have to decide between paying for healthcare, meds, or food and shelter we have a problem.
Agreed. I had to get surgery last year that the insurance company initially didn't want to pay for. Before that got settled, the hospital said it would be $15,000 with half as a down payment.
I don't know... The federal government has a whole page to help with appealing insurance claim denials and if ProPublica has taken an interest in the matter I won't put much faith in the insurance companies (I wouldn't anyways, but ya know)
Not to "no you" but this take is pretty disingenuous considering the high cost of health care, especially when you remove any negotiated rates that may bring it to a more reasonable number, but granting that there may be some "cash discount" rate as well.
Regardless, it's theoretically possible but practically speaking it still blocks treatment for many.
A fetus developing without a skull turning out better than expected is a totally reasonable argument. Just lookt at half the members of the republican party and where they are now. No brains needed!
This is the problem with non-medical personnel making broad strokes medical decisions. Lives can and will be lost.
Giving unqualified people unilateral power to inflict violence is the fundamental underpinning of the American conservative movement, but you'll notice that people are only ever empowered to make a decision the GOP agrees with. Any idiot off the street can declare an abortion to be not medically necessary, but an entire conference room full of doctors isn't considered enough to delcare one necessary. Anyone can declare a book inappropriate, but if the vote is 99 to 1 in favor of the book being appropriate the 1 wins and the book is banned. Anyone can declare an election illegitimate, and if someone does then no amount of evidence of legitimacy is enough to settle the matter and any "evidence", no matter matter how spurious the evidence or unreliable the person delivering it, is taken as absolute proof. In this way they can convince their base that they're fighting for freedom, but they're really only fighting for their own freedom and if anyone uses that freedom incorrectly they will inflict violence on them.