What a sad situation! I think this is a classic example of the danger of drawing conclusions from a small, superficial amount of info about highly complex issues - although I'm sure we've all been guilty of it at some point or another. After all, we can't be experts at everything. But it can become a huge problem when we don't realize we're doing it, and when those conclusions result in decisions with far-reaching consequences.
The issue of late term abortions specifically, is one where I've changed my thinking after digging deeper and realizing much of it is very different than I previously thought. It seemed to be an easy conclusion to oppose late-term abortions - until I looked beyond the surface. According to one source, pre-Dobbs, only 3.3% of all abortions happened within 16-20 weeks and less than 1% happened at 21+ weeks. AND, it's appearing more and more likely to me that these were not done for women trying to end a viable pregnancy, but by women with problem pregnancies. [If a woman didn't want to be pregnant, why would she wait any longer than necessary to try to terminate it?]
This is where I believe the law of unintended consequences DOES come into play. (This article illustrates one aspect I hadn't even thought of.) For example, it's my understanding that for a very long time the standard-of-care for women who have had an unintended miscarriage has been a D&C, also a simple form of early abortion. That treatment option will likely no longer be available in states where abortion has been outlawed. I have no idea what other options there might be, but I'm guessing that could have consequences for future pregnancies for those individuals - and who knows what else. (That's another challenge for OB-Gyn docs I hadn't thought about before.)
For those with non-viable pregnancies, I believe the standard-of-care has also been some form of abortion. This might include women whose fetus has no heartbeat, is developing without a brain, or any number of other conditions that will mean the baby will not be born alive. As we know, many new state laws since the Dobbs decision prohibit this form of medical treatment, even though allowing these pregnancies to continue often puts the mother's health - end even her life - at grave risk. The laws that only allow for abortions to save the mother's life go against the admonition commonly attributed to the Hippocratic oath to 'first, do no harm', putting OB-Gyn docs in an untenable position.
From the article:
<<“The Idaho Legislature continues to introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care,” the hospital statement said. “Consequences for Idaho physicians providing the standard of care may include civil litigation and criminal prosecution, leading to jail time or fines.”>>
The upshot is that those types of laws result in a woman with a non-viable pregnancy not receiving 'standard-of-care' treatment until her condition has advanced so far that she's in danger of death... even though her baby already has no chance of survival. She must first show symptoms (like sepsis, etc.) with life-threatening consequences, even though that may have been easily avoided. I doubt there's any other medical condition where this would be allowed to happen. Delay in treatment could also negatively impact her ability to someday have another pregnancy successful carried to term.)
Even if we never heard about it, I'd bet we all know someone who has faced a horrendous situation like this in their past.
Simplistic, absolute regulations for highly complex situations? A very bad mix, IMHO... |
