463
submitted 1 week ago by MicroWave@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

Avery Davis Bell faced severe complications with a miscarriage in Georgia, where restrictive abortion laws delayed her necessary medical care.

At 18 weeks pregnant, she was forced to wait for life-saving treatment due to Georgia’s abortion restrictions, which prevent immediate intervention unless a medical emergency escalates.

Bell’s experience highlights the risks imposed by post-Dobbs state laws, with maternal deaths rising faster in states with strict abortion bans.

The law’s impact on Bell’s experience highlights the inhumane consequences of abortion restrictions, which can lead to unnecessary suffering and even death.

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 89 points 1 week ago

"God's will."

You're never going to be able to argue against that. No amount of explaining to them the atrocious cruelty of things like this trumps "God's will" for the anti-abortionists.

If you have a miscarriage, God' will. If you die and your baby lives, God's will. If you both die, God's will. If you would have lived if you had just had an abortion, YOU MURDERER!!!!

[-] Thrillhouse@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think it’s god’s will when men aren’t able to get erections. It’s not natural to use viagara or cialis. Surely the same people so in tune with god’s will would agree with that one, right?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago

You would think.

They also seem to have no problem with things like stents or insulin pumps if they need them.

Not to mention eyeglasses.

[-] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I swear, the amount of times I've had someone complain about abortions or gay people being unnatural while at the same time wearing eyeglasses and living in a place filled to the brim with televisions, phones, computers, radios, electrical lights, internet, electric ovens..

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 week ago

I mean, you can't argue against it philosophically, but you can argue against it legally, which is all that matters.

At least, you used to...

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I think it’s God’s Will(TM) that I’m about to push them in front of oncoming traffic.

[-] dgmib@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That’s not an accurate take. There are some pro-lifers who are like that but most are in favour of exceptions when it’s to save the mother’s life, or the fetus has a fatal deformity.

They just don’t (want to) understand that the intentionally vague wording of anti-abortion laws makes it basically impossible for doctors to perform medically indicated abortions until it’s too late to save the patient.

If you claim to be “pro-life” the least you can do is advocate for clear definitions of the medical circumstances where abortive medical procedures are permitted.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Most? Maybe. The ones in legislatures? Not so much. Especially not in Idaho, where even the life of the mother doesn't matter.

But you're right that they don't want to understand. They know what these "life of the mother excepted" laws lead to in practice. Especially now. And yet they haven't changed their minds. They're just putting their hands over their ears and saying, "LA LA LA LA LA!"

[-] RedditReject@lemmy.world 73 points 1 week ago

Pretty soon this will be like a school shooting, hardly making the news and no one cares

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago

As usual it will be thoughts and prayers and we just can't do anything about it.

[-] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 18 points 1 week ago

I was literally going to say this.

Except I was going to phrase it:
This is going to become depressingly common, like school shootings. Soon it wont even make the news.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Huh, now that I think about it, it's been a while since we had one of those, not?

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

They didn't stop. You just stopped hearing about them because the media doesn't report on them en masse anymore.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago

This is abhorrent, and anyone who is ok with this is a terrible person.

[-] Brumefey@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

People like Charlie Kirk spreading the opinion that abortion is murder, are to blame for this…

[-] Speculater@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You mean the majority of voting Americans?

[-] shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 1 week ago
[-] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 36 points 1 week ago

The law’s impact on Bell’s experience highlights the inhumane consequences of abortion restrictions, which can lead to unnecessary suffering and even death.

The purpose of a system is what it does

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

As the deaths continue to add up black market abortions will be performed like pre Roe under shitty conditions that will also result in more patients bleeding out or getting infection and sepsis.

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Don't worry, we'll throw them in jail. That will fix the problem. /s

[-] PortoPeople@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago

Coming soon nationwide.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

I wrote in my own name for president this time around. That way I'm sure to be 100% perfectly aligned with who I voted for. I'm sorry to hear about this but I just couldn't vote for Harris. /s

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Harris and Biden are still currently in office. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Let’s fast forward to the part where you tell me how they pass a law protecting abortion when the GOP owns the House.

Doesn’t matter now. The GOP has a trifecta and SCOTUS so prepare for a nationwide ban. Very cool that we’re about to lose what little protections we have at the state level too.

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I don't see how writing in a name for President instead of voting for Harris has any real bearing on who is in this House of Representatives. I still don't get what point you're trying to make here, especially now that you seem to be jumping from one subject to another.

[-] Aermis@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

I'd like to see more statistics so I can argue the effect of this with more conservative people in my family. Unfortunately statistics like "deaths related to abortion laws saw 56% increase from 2018 to 2022" when Dobbs decisions was made in 2021 isn't exactly a strong argument to show that this decision is leading to deaths and not related to the effects of covid.

And before you argue with me, trust me you can't convince them that a fetus isn't a life. They will treat a fetus the same as a newborn baby. So unless I can prove to them that the law hurts mothers who want the baby I won't convince them the law is unjust, and abortion = murder.

I need to show increase in maternity deaths, unviable births, miscarriages leading to death, forced births leading to deaths. I need to show how this law actually hurts people who want children.

This isn't an argument about choice. The idea that a woman can terminate an unborn baby at will cannot be used as an argument here. There is no consensus that a "collection of cells isn't a baby". Remember that the same people who want to ban abortions also want women to have sex with a partner that is willing to have a child, unplanned pregnancies being part of that journey.

I just narrowly won over that contraception should be medically available.

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Let's steelman the position and say 100% fetuses are complete people equal to any other person.

Then the issue becomes, does the government have the right to force you to use your body to support another person?

If I stab you in the kidney, and you'll die without a kidney transplant, can the government forcibly remove my kidney and give it to you? Obviously not.

Exact same thing with abortion. The whole argument of wether or not a fetus is a person is irrelevant. Nobody can be forced to use their body to support another person.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Here's the problem: they view a clump of cells as more of a human than they view a woman as a human 🙃

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The problem is not the fact that fetuses are people or not, it's Napoleon's "some animals are more equal than others" from Animal Farm. They view the fetus as MORE important and deserving of more rights and care than the person carrying the fetus to term.

Yes, literally. I promise you, I have met a scary amount of conservatives who think women are only good for making babies and cleaning the house.

[-] loutr@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

You should get all the stats you need in the upcoming years. Not sure it will make a difference though.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I mean...they would just be ok with them dying and suffering horribly.

[-] Aermis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

No. No they're not. They are not evil. This is the problem with the entire debate on abortion. Not everyone that is pro life leans with destroying care for the living. It's not a black and white argument. Unfortunately the law is black and white which is leading to deaths. Deaths that they need to understand is the cause of the Supreme Court decision

[-] kcuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I need help with this data too for similar reasons.

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Bell said she does not blame her doctors at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. Rather, she blames the law itself.

it is on the doctor's to either take the risk or quit

people have to step up for change to happen

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago

I agree... However, I do understand the hesitance as well. Imagine spending untolds amount of money, and over a decade in school, only to end up with a 99 year prison sentence for preventing a woman with a miscarriage from dying.

Fuck this country.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

"You save this lady's life or you don't have to find a new way to feed your kids" is not a position anyone should have to be put in.

[-] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

It's easy to armchair say you'd go to prison for it. A doctor who goes to jail won't be practicing medicine again, kinda hard to do CME as an inmate...

[-] Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It would be much easier to just move to another state without these restrictions.

[-] medgremlin@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago

This has already started happening and the result is that there are growing swaths of red states where there is little to no access to OB/Gyn care. Women in places like Idaho are on waiting lists for OB/Gyns so long that their first prenatal appointment can be as late as 20 weeks into the pregnancy. The waiting list problem doesn't even account for the fact that women are having to drive as much as 200 miles to get to appointments.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

I am sure the Trump administration will get right on this.

this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
463 points (99.6% liked)

News

23322 readers
3903 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS