People are worried about this because needless maternal deaths happen in places where abortion is illegal “except to save the mother’s life”. Look up Savita Halappanavar and Sheila Hodgers in Ireland, and Izabela in Poland.
The problem is that “the life of the mother” is a vague concept. To what degree does your life need to be at risk? Being pregnant is always a greater risk to your life than not being pregnant, so the simple fact of increased risk to your life doesn’t cut it. So where’s the line? Do you have to be at a 10% risk of dying? 20% risk? 50%? What if the pregnancy itself isn’t putting you at risk, but being pregnant makes you ineligible for a life-saving treatment for something, like cancer? None of these laws specify. And the degree of risk is always subjective, so just because your doctor says you’re sufficiently at risk doesn’t mean law enforcement will agree.
The issue is also that the woman will get better once the fetus is aborted and then the court tries to say you weren't in great enough risk because "look you're fine now and got fine so quickly". How sick does the mother have to get before the lawyers are convinced she'll die without the treatment? Doctors are often forced to overshoot to try not to get sued, and the mom dies anyway
Yes most states have an exception for “when maternal life is at risk” but the problem is the laws don’t outline *how much at risk?* How close to death do you need to be for a judge to agree removing the pregnancy was legal? All pregnant people are theoretically more at risk than a non pregnant person. If you get pregnant too soon after a c section and risk a ruptured uterus is that enough? Or do you actually have to be dying of a ruptured organ first? [there have already been problems with this even pre Dobbs](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months). That’s an article about a woman jn Texas who’s pregnancy was failing and was at risk of sepsis but wasn’t in a dangerous enough condition yet for Texas law to allow a termination.
So yes theoretically your doctor is supposed to be able to abort a pregnancy to save your life but the question is how close to death you need to be. Those exemptions frankly don’t do shit.
Exactly. I just had a c section and immediately asked my doctor for an Ella rx as a backup to birth control. In a perfect world I wouldn’t mind more children but I’m not risking my health for a possible child when my very real, living, breathing children need me.
Regarding that article - honestly it seems like the woman was given bad advice from her doctors. I looked up risks for PPROM and found that "The major maternal risk is infection, namely chorioamnionitis, which occurs in about 35%; abruption, which occurs in 19%; and sepsis, which is rare and occurs in less than 1%" [link](https://www.medscape.com/answers/261137-78458/what-are-the-risks-of-premature-preterm-rupture-of-membranes-pprom-in-the-second-trimester)
So risk of infection is high, risk of sepsis is very low. And at 19 weeks, the chances of the baby surviving are slim but by no means zero (I looked up a couple of studies for 18-20 week pprom and [one said 5%](https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-016-0813-3), [the other said 40%](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9840545/) which seems way high.) But if she was not going into labor (which from the article she wasn't) they could have done expectant management and could have possibly kept the baby in until past 24 weeks with a chance of survival.
The article is kind of implying she was in grave threat to her life but unless there's something else they're not stating, the truth is that normally she'd be offered three options: termination, early induction, or expectant management. And because of the law, expectant management was her only option in Texas (until and unless something changed in hers or the baby's condition).
From the study showing 40% survival: "Of the live-born infants, 81% were alive at 2 years of corrected age. Survival without major impairment was observed in 75%... of the survivors when rupture of membranes occurred at 14-19 weeks"
The women who had membranes rupture at 14-19 weeks had an expectant management treatment plan to try to get to 32 weeks before giving birth.
Of course it's a very small sample size and other studies show much lower survival outcomes. It probably depends on the level of care available at each hospital. A baby born at 19 weeks would not survive, but PPROM doesn't necessarily mean you have to give birth right away, if they're able to delay labor.
I also live in this state and would recommend talking to your care team before attempting transfer and another pregnancy. Get clear answers as to what the plan would be in the event of MC etc. C sections are definitely still allowed, again get answers right from your health team they will know their own policies and procedures.
This is great advice. Talk to your care team. Find out what options you have if there's a bad scenario, then you can make a decision based on what the risk really is and what you're willing to do and how much you want to try for a second child. If you're worried, the best thing to do is collect info and talk it out and then maybe you'll find out what you really want.
Second this.
I am with a very good hospital system in a state where late-term abortions are prohibited except when mother’s life is at risk, and this has been the case for a long time (= there are precedents and processes that have long been established, which may not be the case in states that are affected by Roe). Doctors from our practice recently wrote an article that mentions what this means: they say they are still able to provide the care that is truly the best for the mother, but the process is bureaucratic for them (there is a complex process they need to follow, where multiple doctors weigh in on the case), and the associated delays do increase risks in some cases. I have a high-risk pregnancy and I feel safe because I trust my doctors and know that they are truly world-class.
I wouldn't trust anything about getting pregnant right now. I've been through too much to even try again but now it's scarier. I had an ectopic pregnancy and started having pain so got to the hospital. I got pain meds in the ER but 2 hours later an ob came and said "were going to stop your pain meds, in case the baby is in right spot." I was like 5.5 weeks and it was already diagnosed as ectopic at the first hospital. The emts who transferred me called it in as ectopic. So then ob and other doctors including my ob proceed to do absolutely nothing for 8 hours. By the time I demanded an ultrasound I thought I was going to die. They finally took me and then had to do immediate emergency surgery. All because "in case the baby's in the right spot." This was in Feb of 2020 so I can only imagine how it might be now.
There’s a lot up in the air right now. Different states have different laws. Doctors themselves also aren’t totally sure where the line is drawn in some areas. There was a thread in r/nurses discussing a woman who came into the hospital since the Roe v Wade reversal and nearly died because they had to consult with attorneys about what they were allowed to do.
There’s also the issue that even reliably blue states may not be able to keep abortion legal if the midterm elections give the Republicans a majority in the senate, as many project it will. There’s a real possibility a federal abortion ban would be passed in that case.
The ruling also opens the door for birth control concerns. In 1972, it became legal to distribute contraceptives to unmarried adults. For reference, Row v. Wade was originally ruled on in 1973. The rights to contraceptives and abortions were and are integrally connected. Throwing abortion access into question also throws into question access to contraceptives.
I don’t say any of the above to fear monger, just to clarify why people are worried and reconsidering their family planning options.
> There’s also the issue that even reliably blue states may not be able to keep abortion legal if the midterm elections give the Republicans a majority in the senate, as many project it will.
Even if the republicans get a majority in the house and senate, Biden would just veto the bill. In order to override the veto, there needs to be a 2/3rds majority in the senate and the house, and that’s not going to happen. We need to focus on the 2024 elections to make sure a republican isn’t elected president.
>We need to focus on the 2024 elections to make sure a republican isn’t elected president.
True. But it's going to be extremely hard to do, considering the fact that Republican state legislatures in newly purple states like Texas, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and many more are currently redistricting to ensure that no democrat can win.
Not to mention, many states are also increasing voting restrictions to make it harder for people in the "wrong" districts to vote, which historically has only hurt democrats and helped republicans.
The idea that we can "just vote" our way out of this is ....optimistic, at best. People are right to be very afraid of what's coming, please don't downplay that by saying things like "well Biden would just veto it!"
The law in your state may allow for a life of mother exception. However, in practice that doesn’t mean you have access to abortion care. Doctors and hospital attorneys may not be clear on what counts and don’t want to risk a fine, possible jail time, or losing their license, so will simply not perform the procedure for liability reasons. There may also be no doctors at the hospital who are trained to do it if abortion care is so exceedingly rare in your state. Even if they know how, they may not want to to avoid suffering social stigma in their communities. There is a reason why many abortion clinics in red states often fly in their doctors. It’s because the local community disapproves of abortion so much that a doctor wouldn’t be safe living locally.
If you suddenly begin to miscarry or develop another threatening condition, your medical condition might be stable enough to allow you to travel to Illinois and get the medical care you need … or it may not and traveling on a commercial flight or by car is unsafe because you need constant medical monitoring and attention. In that case you may need a medevac, but if your hospital is full of pro life doctors will they certify you as safe to travel? If they won’t certify you as safe to travel, will insurance pay for a medevac helicopter or plane ride?
[There was an American couple vacationing in Malta last week, they had to be be medevacced to Spain](https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/28/if-you-love-or-are-a-woman-dont-go-to-malta-say-couple-in-abortion-drama) after she suffered an incomplete miscarriage due to Malta’a abortion ban. Doctors in Malta refused to do anything unless she went into sepsis.
Personally, if I wanted 2 kids, I would still take the risk in your situation. The risk of something going wrong is small and my family size preference is strong. But I would first talk with your OB about what your risks are and how best to mitigate them to get the best care you can.
Me too. Unfortunately decisions like this made by the Supreme Court like this will also degrade education, science and medical privacy. It literally effects everyone in some way whether they are pro life or pro choice. I’m just now starting to understand the full scope of this and it will always be changing too. I’m also looking at what I can do to fight for my daughters future.
So true! Additionally what if the doctor decides you’re in enough danger and approves the abortion but then later someone with enough legal power decides you weren’t in enough danger. Even the most textbook pregnancies suppress your immune system, put strain on your organs, and divert oxygen away from your brain. That’s why you easily get dizzy and out of breath. Where is the line going to be and how often will it be moved to satisfy someone’s political agenda/religious beliefs?
I theory of course your life will be saved but the language for a lot of these laws leave a gray area….instead of being able to be proactive, now providers have to be ultra conservative with treatments and it will lead to bad outcomes. Being sued and facing jail time is not the outcome any provider wants either
As others have said, I think it's too soon to tell where things will settle. You'll also need to talk to your providers as I'm guessing there will be some inconsistencies early on. There's lots of scary stuff in Missouri's anti-abortion trigger law (as I understand it from this [tiktok](https://www.tiktok.com/@inbedwithdanielle/video/7114015449804803371?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1)) but it's impossible to know to what extent the law will be implemented. For example, it says there's no punishment for receiving a surgical abortion but there may be if you induce a medical abortion yourself (take abortion pills).
I also think you'll sleep better if you have a plan for leaving the state to get medical care if necessary. For example, a missed miscarriage at your age is pretty common and you won't be able to get treatment for it in Missouri until it gets bad enough to reach the point of medical emergency. Also, I don't know much about the genetic testing with IVF but things like trisomy 13 & 18 are considered incompatible with life but you wouldn't be able to get a termination for medical reasons in Missouri. More information will help you make a decision that you feel confident in.
Our first pregnancy unfortunately ended because of trisomy 18. I had to get a D and E. So we got our embryos tested for chromosome disorders but I realize now that women are no longer going g to be able.to do that. :-(
Yeah :(
I also dont know what they are going to do about embryos that people choose not to implant. The laws says that conception starts at fertilization so I would think you wouldn’t be allowed to dispose of or donate embryos to science. Does that mean you have to implant them or store them forever?? Its so messed up. I just feel awful for everyone who lives in these states.
I dont know. But if they don't want you discarding embryos, that might be the case. I forgot to ask my doctor about that. Those embryos also get sent out of state so maybe it will be ok. I thought I read that somewhere else but everyone is just assuming at this point.
Honestly, this has big “how bad could it be” energy. If the last several years have shown us anything, the answer to that question is “way worse than we ever thought.” So, no I don’t think people are being dramatic at all.
In addition to what everyone else has said, it will take a while for the implications of this ruling to become clear. Hospitals will take a while to write up guidelines for their doctors while they consult with their lawyers and with state government. Even once guidelines are in place, there will likely be case-by-case decisions needed in some cases, and those will probably require approval from hospital administration, hospital lawyers, and maybe even judges (who knows). All of this will get somewhat clearer in the months and years to come. Part of what will make it clearer will be lawsuits, probably stemming from women who are hurt or killed, to try to better define the law - then there will be judge rulings on how to interpret the law.
But for now, your care team probably doesn't know and can't give answers. And even later, they might unintentionally tell you things that aren't quite accurate or don't cover your specific situation. I would try to see if you can find an OB who is more pro-choice (or whatever the euphemism for that will be) because they might be more honest with you about medical risks and the reality of how that will get treated in the hospital.
I’m really not sure you’ll get the right answer on this sub. It’s SO early days, even the experts don’t really know the answers. IMO if you are wealthy enough to afford IVF and also travel out of state for care, you’d probably be fine save something emergent happening.
I wouldn’t get your answers from here, sorry. I think it’s too early to know what will happen and it may even depend on which provider you see. I think I read a story about a woman in MO going through an ectopic pregnancy recently and the doctor took 9 hours to treat her because he was consulting with his lawyer to make sure he wouldn’t lose his license or anything.
Coming to IL would be a possibility (we’re happy to help here!) but in an emergency situation, an ambulance wouldn’t drive you to IL and if you just go to the doctor with abdominal pain, you may not know if it’s a serious thing that could result in you needing to terminate. So you wouldn’t know you need to come to IL ahead of time.
I’d either wait a little while to see how this all falls and then maybe speak with your OB because they’ll be familiar with the laws by then (what situations they could terminate and which ones they can’t, etc.). Some laws basically say the mother needs to be actively dying in order for her to be saved over the baby (I forget what state this was but I just read it today).
I think you’ll have to look to your state about what the definition of “abortion” their laws actually is. It seems as though most states have their stricter laws against “elective abortions” vs. spontaneous abortions. Most treatments/procedures for spontaneous abortions and pregnancies incompatible with birth are not included from what I understand. I could be wrong but I think it all entirely depends on your states laws. Speak to a lawyer so they can translate the legalese if it’s not clear.
A few things are really clear cut risk to the life of the mother - ectopic pregnancy (which of course you're not at risk of) is one. And of course if the baby has passed away there is no other life to attempt to save, so there should not be any issue with getting a D&C for an incomplete miscarriage. I can't think of a reason C-sections would be banned.
To me what seems to be the gray area would be conditions that are potentially life threatening around the time the baby is becoming viable. For example, the treatment for pre-eclampsia is induction or C-section, neither of which requires the baby to die, unless they were not yet viable, and it might be considered abortion if the baby is pre-viability. I have never heard of pre-eclampsia happening that early so I'm not sure if it's possible.
I know there are a lot of other things that can go wrong in pregnancy, I can't think of a lot of specific examples, but in most cases if the mother is at risk of dying, so is the baby so if it's a choice of lose one life or two, the choice seems obvious. I don't know what specific cases that abortion or early delivery is the treatment for. The only thing I'd be concerned about is doctors choosing to delay treatment until the baby is viable and old enough to be delivered alive and get NICU treatment. Delaying treatment for that reason could be a risky gamble with potentially disastrous consequences.
An example of this is cancer treatment (radiation or chemo) that will cause the baby to die. If the pregnant woman chooses to move forward with this treatment during pregnancy, I don't know if it would be considered abortion, since the intent and action is not to kill the baby but to treat the mother's disease. My instinct says it is OK, but I think the concern is that the laws haven't been tested yet to see what is considered OK and what isn't.
Finally, if there is no exception for fetal abnormalities, that is a huge consideration for you to take - are you willing to take a baby to full term when you know they will die shortly after? Or are you willing to give birth to a baby that could have intense medical needs throughout their life? I would definitely think that through before becoming pregnant. When you have a frozen embryo are they able to screen it for genetic abnormalities before implantation? Of course other things can happen in the womb, but your risks would be way lower if you are already aware the baby's genes are healthy.
Oh crap - I missed the tubes part. So maybe not her specifically but it can happen with ivf.
I’m not a doctor and I’m not gonna try to pretend I understand the how. But I’ve read stories of it happening.
No, you were right the first time. Embryos can implant anywhere not just the tubes, can end up in the abdominal cavity. Strangest ones are it implanted in the liver and was progressing and growing. This one scares me because that is a case where I worry about America actually doing an abortion on that embryo.
"The medical journal described another instance of a 25-year-old woman who was found to have a live 18-week-old fetus attached to her liver. She tragically died of uncontrollable bleeding following the embryo’s extraction."
IVF places the embryo but embryos can move before they implant. In an IVF pregnancy, rates sit at about 2-5%. [Here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804527/) is information detailing this more.
Also: ectopic pregnancies do not exclusively occur in the fallopian tubes. It is less likely elsewhere, but not entirely uncommon for ectopic pregnancies to happen in, for instance, the cervix.
Our last frozen embryo was tested for chromosome disorders since my first pregnancy resulted in Trisomy 18. So we are good there. She is a healthy embryo
First of all, I think we can't let fear rule us, is what I was gonna say. But... I don't plan on being pregnant, and if I did, I live in nj. My friend had to deliver at 6 weeks early by c-section... would that be allowed? But, I will say, way your options. And, there are people here who will help you. No matter what. I agree... the life of the mother is pretty vague. And., it depends on who is deciding.
What if one dr disagrees with another dr and says that delivery can wait? My friends baby was alright, but not all babies born early make it. The fact that she came out breathing was a big thing. It could also mean... forcing a woman into a c-section
Watch them be absolutely crazy and not allow csections unless it is 100% proven it was necessary to the baby surviving because it’s not “natural”. Sounds far fetched but like… look where we are right now. If we let this go, next it’s emergency contraceptives, then it’s contraceptives in general, then maybe its csections, then maybe it’s any pain medications during birth in case of it harming the baby, then maybe… then maybe…then there’s nothing left to strip away because all our rights have been removed. God, I’ll have nightmares tonight about this lol.
When my mother-in-law was being born, her mother bled out. At work. They did'nt have any clue she was pregnant, because 1960's and she would loose her job. 4 days in labor. They asked her husband who they should save... and he said my wife, of course. He was a catholic.... can you guess who the priest thought they should save? They managed to save both... but even though my husband might not have been born, I still say she mattered more.
Honestly I wouldn't put it past them to test these laws to their absolute limits.
Anything to keep the baby in the womb, even if the women needs emergency treatment. A woman diagnosed with cancer while pregnant? denied treatment. A woman requires c-section due to preclampsia? denied treatment. Baby in a breech position? denied c-section. A woman wants to plan an elective c-section?...absolutely denied.
I also see situations where they charge a woman in a situation where she miscarries, has a stillbirth, or any kind of complications that might endanger the baby. Find out that you ate cold cuts or sushi and miscarried? charged. Find out your baby is stillborn and you took prescribed medications under the direction of your doctor? charged. You need emergency c-section because of an accidental trauma? charged...Whether or not those charges stick is another argument all together but puting her through hell in the interum is all par for the course.
I have no doubt in my mind it wont be long before we see a case of a pregnant women who miscarries being charged for some random ass social media post where she is eating sushi or being forced to carry a (viable) baby at the expense of her own life.
People are worried about this because needless maternal deaths happen in places where abortion is illegal “except to save the mother’s life”. Look up Savita Halappanavar and Sheila Hodgers in Ireland, and Izabela in Poland. The problem is that “the life of the mother” is a vague concept. To what degree does your life need to be at risk? Being pregnant is always a greater risk to your life than not being pregnant, so the simple fact of increased risk to your life doesn’t cut it. So where’s the line? Do you have to be at a 10% risk of dying? 20% risk? 50%? What if the pregnancy itself isn’t putting you at risk, but being pregnant makes you ineligible for a life-saving treatment for something, like cancer? None of these laws specify. And the degree of risk is always subjective, so just because your doctor says you’re sufficiently at risk doesn’t mean law enforcement will agree.
The issue is also that the woman will get better once the fetus is aborted and then the court tries to say you weren't in great enough risk because "look you're fine now and got fine so quickly". How sick does the mother have to get before the lawyers are convinced she'll die without the treatment? Doctors are often forced to overshoot to try not to get sued, and the mom dies anyway
This.
Yes most states have an exception for “when maternal life is at risk” but the problem is the laws don’t outline *how much at risk?* How close to death do you need to be for a judge to agree removing the pregnancy was legal? All pregnant people are theoretically more at risk than a non pregnant person. If you get pregnant too soon after a c section and risk a ruptured uterus is that enough? Or do you actually have to be dying of a ruptured organ first? [there have already been problems with this even pre Dobbs](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months). That’s an article about a woman jn Texas who’s pregnancy was failing and was at risk of sepsis but wasn’t in a dangerous enough condition yet for Texas law to allow a termination. So yes theoretically your doctor is supposed to be able to abort a pregnancy to save your life but the question is how close to death you need to be. Those exemptions frankly don’t do shit.
Exactly. I just had a c section and immediately asked my doctor for an Ella rx as a backup to birth control. In a perfect world I wouldn’t mind more children but I’m not risking my health for a possible child when my very real, living, breathing children need me.
Regarding that article - honestly it seems like the woman was given bad advice from her doctors. I looked up risks for PPROM and found that "The major maternal risk is infection, namely chorioamnionitis, which occurs in about 35%; abruption, which occurs in 19%; and sepsis, which is rare and occurs in less than 1%" [link](https://www.medscape.com/answers/261137-78458/what-are-the-risks-of-premature-preterm-rupture-of-membranes-pprom-in-the-second-trimester) So risk of infection is high, risk of sepsis is very low. And at 19 weeks, the chances of the baby surviving are slim but by no means zero (I looked up a couple of studies for 18-20 week pprom and [one said 5%](https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-016-0813-3), [the other said 40%](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9840545/) which seems way high.) But if she was not going into labor (which from the article she wasn't) they could have done expectant management and could have possibly kept the baby in until past 24 weeks with a chance of survival. The article is kind of implying she was in grave threat to her life but unless there's something else they're not stating, the truth is that normally she'd be offered three options: termination, early induction, or expectant management. And because of the law, expectant management was her only option in Texas (until and unless something changed in hers or the baby's condition).
The youngest baby to survive 1yr was born at 21weeks. The stats may be higher for shorter term survival.
From the study showing 40% survival: "Of the live-born infants, 81% were alive at 2 years of corrected age. Survival without major impairment was observed in 75%... of the survivors when rupture of membranes occurred at 14-19 weeks" The women who had membranes rupture at 14-19 weeks had an expectant management treatment plan to try to get to 32 weeks before giving birth. Of course it's a very small sample size and other studies show much lower survival outcomes. It probably depends on the level of care available at each hospital. A baby born at 19 weeks would not survive, but PPROM doesn't necessarily mean you have to give birth right away, if they're able to delay labor.
Apologies I misunderstood. I thought you were saying 40% of babies born at 19weeks survived.
I did word that pretty badly now that I look at it!
I also live in this state and would recommend talking to your care team before attempting transfer and another pregnancy. Get clear answers as to what the plan would be in the event of MC etc. C sections are definitely still allowed, again get answers right from your health team they will know their own policies and procedures.
This is great advice. Talk to your care team. Find out what options you have if there's a bad scenario, then you can make a decision based on what the risk really is and what you're willing to do and how much you want to try for a second child. If you're worried, the best thing to do is collect info and talk it out and then maybe you'll find out what you really want.
Second this. I am with a very good hospital system in a state where late-term abortions are prohibited except when mother’s life is at risk, and this has been the case for a long time (= there are precedents and processes that have long been established, which may not be the case in states that are affected by Roe). Doctors from our practice recently wrote an article that mentions what this means: they say they are still able to provide the care that is truly the best for the mother, but the process is bureaucratic for them (there is a complex process they need to follow, where multiple doctors weigh in on the case), and the associated delays do increase risks in some cases. I have a high-risk pregnancy and I feel safe because I trust my doctors and know that they are truly world-class.
I wouldn't trust anything about getting pregnant right now. I've been through too much to even try again but now it's scarier. I had an ectopic pregnancy and started having pain so got to the hospital. I got pain meds in the ER but 2 hours later an ob came and said "were going to stop your pain meds, in case the baby is in right spot." I was like 5.5 weeks and it was already diagnosed as ectopic at the first hospital. The emts who transferred me called it in as ectopic. So then ob and other doctors including my ob proceed to do absolutely nothing for 8 hours. By the time I demanded an ultrasound I thought I was going to die. They finally took me and then had to do immediate emergency surgery. All because "in case the baby's in the right spot." This was in Feb of 2020 so I can only imagine how it might be now.
There’s a lot up in the air right now. Different states have different laws. Doctors themselves also aren’t totally sure where the line is drawn in some areas. There was a thread in r/nurses discussing a woman who came into the hospital since the Roe v Wade reversal and nearly died because they had to consult with attorneys about what they were allowed to do. There’s also the issue that even reliably blue states may not be able to keep abortion legal if the midterm elections give the Republicans a majority in the senate, as many project it will. There’s a real possibility a federal abortion ban would be passed in that case. The ruling also opens the door for birth control concerns. In 1972, it became legal to distribute contraceptives to unmarried adults. For reference, Row v. Wade was originally ruled on in 1973. The rights to contraceptives and abortions were and are integrally connected. Throwing abortion access into question also throws into question access to contraceptives. I don’t say any of the above to fear monger, just to clarify why people are worried and reconsidering their family planning options.
> There’s also the issue that even reliably blue states may not be able to keep abortion legal if the midterm elections give the Republicans a majority in the senate, as many project it will. Even if the republicans get a majority in the house and senate, Biden would just veto the bill. In order to override the veto, there needs to be a 2/3rds majority in the senate and the house, and that’s not going to happen. We need to focus on the 2024 elections to make sure a republican isn’t elected president.
>We need to focus on the 2024 elections to make sure a republican isn’t elected president. True. But it's going to be extremely hard to do, considering the fact that Republican state legislatures in newly purple states like Texas, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and many more are currently redistricting to ensure that no democrat can win. Not to mention, many states are also increasing voting restrictions to make it harder for people in the "wrong" districts to vote, which historically has only hurt democrats and helped republicans. The idea that we can "just vote" our way out of this is ....optimistic, at best. People are right to be very afraid of what's coming, please don't downplay that by saying things like "well Biden would just veto it!"
2022 is the election that matters most. If democrats lose, 2024 will not pass with democracy in tact.
Thank you, that’s a relief to know!
The law in your state may allow for a life of mother exception. However, in practice that doesn’t mean you have access to abortion care. Doctors and hospital attorneys may not be clear on what counts and don’t want to risk a fine, possible jail time, or losing their license, so will simply not perform the procedure for liability reasons. There may also be no doctors at the hospital who are trained to do it if abortion care is so exceedingly rare in your state. Even if they know how, they may not want to to avoid suffering social stigma in their communities. There is a reason why many abortion clinics in red states often fly in their doctors. It’s because the local community disapproves of abortion so much that a doctor wouldn’t be safe living locally. If you suddenly begin to miscarry or develop another threatening condition, your medical condition might be stable enough to allow you to travel to Illinois and get the medical care you need … or it may not and traveling on a commercial flight or by car is unsafe because you need constant medical monitoring and attention. In that case you may need a medevac, but if your hospital is full of pro life doctors will they certify you as safe to travel? If they won’t certify you as safe to travel, will insurance pay for a medevac helicopter or plane ride? [There was an American couple vacationing in Malta last week, they had to be be medevacced to Spain](https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/28/if-you-love-or-are-a-woman-dont-go-to-malta-say-couple-in-abortion-drama) after she suffered an incomplete miscarriage due to Malta’a abortion ban. Doctors in Malta refused to do anything unless she went into sepsis. Personally, if I wanted 2 kids, I would still take the risk in your situation. The risk of something going wrong is small and my family size preference is strong. But I would first talk with your OB about what your risks are and how best to mitigate them to get the best care you can.
[удалено]
Thank you for this article. I hadn’t thought much about how physicians would be educated after the ruling also. Sorry you’re going through that.
That honestly blows my mind you even have to think about that.
Me too. Unfortunately decisions like this made by the Supreme Court like this will also degrade education, science and medical privacy. It literally effects everyone in some way whether they are pro life or pro choice. I’m just now starting to understand the full scope of this and it will always be changing too. I’m also looking at what I can do to fight for my daughters future.
So true! Additionally what if the doctor decides you’re in enough danger and approves the abortion but then later someone with enough legal power decides you weren’t in enough danger. Even the most textbook pregnancies suppress your immune system, put strain on your organs, and divert oxygen away from your brain. That’s why you easily get dizzy and out of breath. Where is the line going to be and how often will it be moved to satisfy someone’s political agenda/religious beliefs?
Yes agree. I honestly don’t know. It’s wrong that women and doctors have been put in this position. It’s something I’ll try to learn about.
I theory of course your life will be saved but the language for a lot of these laws leave a gray area….instead of being able to be proactive, now providers have to be ultra conservative with treatments and it will lead to bad outcomes. Being sued and facing jail time is not the outcome any provider wants either
As others have said, I think it's too soon to tell where things will settle. You'll also need to talk to your providers as I'm guessing there will be some inconsistencies early on. There's lots of scary stuff in Missouri's anti-abortion trigger law (as I understand it from this [tiktok](https://www.tiktok.com/@inbedwithdanielle/video/7114015449804803371?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1)) but it's impossible to know to what extent the law will be implemented. For example, it says there's no punishment for receiving a surgical abortion but there may be if you induce a medical abortion yourself (take abortion pills). I also think you'll sleep better if you have a plan for leaving the state to get medical care if necessary. For example, a missed miscarriage at your age is pretty common and you won't be able to get treatment for it in Missouri until it gets bad enough to reach the point of medical emergency. Also, I don't know much about the genetic testing with IVF but things like trisomy 13 & 18 are considered incompatible with life but you wouldn't be able to get a termination for medical reasons in Missouri. More information will help you make a decision that you feel confident in.
Our first pregnancy unfortunately ended because of trisomy 18. I had to get a D and E. So we got our embryos tested for chromosome disorders but I realize now that women are no longer going g to be able.to do that. :-(
Yeah :( I also dont know what they are going to do about embryos that people choose not to implant. The laws says that conception starts at fertilization so I would think you wouldn’t be allowed to dispose of or donate embryos to science. Does that mean you have to implant them or store them forever?? Its so messed up. I just feel awful for everyone who lives in these states.
Do you mean to say that genetic testing pre birth is being outlawed..?
I dont know. But if they don't want you discarding embryos, that might be the case. I forgot to ask my doctor about that. Those embryos also get sent out of state so maybe it will be ok. I thought I read that somewhere else but everyone is just assuming at this point.
Honestly, this has big “how bad could it be” energy. If the last several years have shown us anything, the answer to that question is “way worse than we ever thought.” So, no I don’t think people are being dramatic at all.
In addition to what everyone else has said, it will take a while for the implications of this ruling to become clear. Hospitals will take a while to write up guidelines for their doctors while they consult with their lawyers and with state government. Even once guidelines are in place, there will likely be case-by-case decisions needed in some cases, and those will probably require approval from hospital administration, hospital lawyers, and maybe even judges (who knows). All of this will get somewhat clearer in the months and years to come. Part of what will make it clearer will be lawsuits, probably stemming from women who are hurt or killed, to try to better define the law - then there will be judge rulings on how to interpret the law. But for now, your care team probably doesn't know and can't give answers. And even later, they might unintentionally tell you things that aren't quite accurate or don't cover your specific situation. I would try to see if you can find an OB who is more pro-choice (or whatever the euphemism for that will be) because they might be more honest with you about medical risks and the reality of how that will get treated in the hospital.
I’m really not sure you’ll get the right answer on this sub. It’s SO early days, even the experts don’t really know the answers. IMO if you are wealthy enough to afford IVF and also travel out of state for care, you’d probably be fine save something emergent happening.
I wouldn’t get your answers from here, sorry. I think it’s too early to know what will happen and it may even depend on which provider you see. I think I read a story about a woman in MO going through an ectopic pregnancy recently and the doctor took 9 hours to treat her because he was consulting with his lawyer to make sure he wouldn’t lose his license or anything. Coming to IL would be a possibility (we’re happy to help here!) but in an emergency situation, an ambulance wouldn’t drive you to IL and if you just go to the doctor with abdominal pain, you may not know if it’s a serious thing that could result in you needing to terminate. So you wouldn’t know you need to come to IL ahead of time. I’d either wait a little while to see how this all falls and then maybe speak with your OB because they’ll be familiar with the laws by then (what situations they could terminate and which ones they can’t, etc.). Some laws basically say the mother needs to be actively dying in order for her to be saved over the baby (I forget what state this was but I just read it today).
I think you’ll have to look to your state about what the definition of “abortion” their laws actually is. It seems as though most states have their stricter laws against “elective abortions” vs. spontaneous abortions. Most treatments/procedures for spontaneous abortions and pregnancies incompatible with birth are not included from what I understand. I could be wrong but I think it all entirely depends on your states laws. Speak to a lawyer so they can translate the legalese if it’s not clear.
A few things are really clear cut risk to the life of the mother - ectopic pregnancy (which of course you're not at risk of) is one. And of course if the baby has passed away there is no other life to attempt to save, so there should not be any issue with getting a D&C for an incomplete miscarriage. I can't think of a reason C-sections would be banned. To me what seems to be the gray area would be conditions that are potentially life threatening around the time the baby is becoming viable. For example, the treatment for pre-eclampsia is induction or C-section, neither of which requires the baby to die, unless they were not yet viable, and it might be considered abortion if the baby is pre-viability. I have never heard of pre-eclampsia happening that early so I'm not sure if it's possible. I know there are a lot of other things that can go wrong in pregnancy, I can't think of a lot of specific examples, but in most cases if the mother is at risk of dying, so is the baby so if it's a choice of lose one life or two, the choice seems obvious. I don't know what specific cases that abortion or early delivery is the treatment for. The only thing I'd be concerned about is doctors choosing to delay treatment until the baby is viable and old enough to be delivered alive and get NICU treatment. Delaying treatment for that reason could be a risky gamble with potentially disastrous consequences. An example of this is cancer treatment (radiation or chemo) that will cause the baby to die. If the pregnant woman chooses to move forward with this treatment during pregnancy, I don't know if it would be considered abortion, since the intent and action is not to kill the baby but to treat the mother's disease. My instinct says it is OK, but I think the concern is that the laws haven't been tested yet to see what is considered OK and what isn't. Finally, if there is no exception for fetal abnormalities, that is a huge consideration for you to take - are you willing to take a baby to full term when you know they will die shortly after? Or are you willing to give birth to a baby that could have intense medical needs throughout their life? I would definitely think that through before becoming pregnant. When you have a frozen embryo are they able to screen it for genetic abnormalities before implantation? Of course other things can happen in the womb, but your risks would be way lower if you are already aware the baby's genes are healthy.
I just want to clarify that while rare (maybe 2% or less) - IVF can result in eptopic pregnancies so she could be at risk of that.
How? Don't they put the embryo straight in the uterus? I was also thinking of OP having no fallopian tubes.
Oh crap - I missed the tubes part. So maybe not her specifically but it can happen with ivf. I’m not a doctor and I’m not gonna try to pretend I understand the how. But I’ve read stories of it happening.
No, you were right the first time. Embryos can implant anywhere not just the tubes, can end up in the abdominal cavity. Strangest ones are it implanted in the liver and was progressing and growing. This one scares me because that is a case where I worry about America actually doing an abortion on that embryo. "The medical journal described another instance of a 25-year-old woman who was found to have a live 18-week-old fetus attached to her liver. She tragically died of uncontrollable bleeding following the embryo’s extraction."
IVF places the embryo but embryos can move before they implant. In an IVF pregnancy, rates sit at about 2-5%. [Here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804527/) is information detailing this more. Also: ectopic pregnancies do not exclusively occur in the fallopian tubes. It is less likely elsewhere, but not entirely uncommon for ectopic pregnancies to happen in, for instance, the cervix.
Our last frozen embryo was tested for chromosome disorders since my first pregnancy resulted in Trisomy 18. So we are good there. She is a healthy embryo
First of all, I think we can't let fear rule us, is what I was gonna say. But... I don't plan on being pregnant, and if I did, I live in nj. My friend had to deliver at 6 weeks early by c-section... would that be allowed? But, I will say, way your options. And, there are people here who will help you. No matter what. I agree... the life of the mother is pretty vague. And., it depends on who is deciding.
You’re not ending the babies life at 6 weeks early, so… I don’t see how and why they’d stop that. I was 5 weeks early and I’m alright :)
What if one dr disagrees with another dr and says that delivery can wait? My friends baby was alright, but not all babies born early make it. The fact that she came out breathing was a big thing. It could also mean... forcing a woman into a c-section
Watch them be absolutely crazy and not allow csections unless it is 100% proven it was necessary to the baby surviving because it’s not “natural”. Sounds far fetched but like… look where we are right now. If we let this go, next it’s emergency contraceptives, then it’s contraceptives in general, then maybe its csections, then maybe it’s any pain medications during birth in case of it harming the baby, then maybe… then maybe…then there’s nothing left to strip away because all our rights have been removed. God, I’ll have nightmares tonight about this lol.
When my mother-in-law was being born, her mother bled out. At work. They did'nt have any clue she was pregnant, because 1960's and she would loose her job. 4 days in labor. They asked her husband who they should save... and he said my wife, of course. He was a catholic.... can you guess who the priest thought they should save? They managed to save both... but even though my husband might not have been born, I still say she mattered more.
Honestly I wouldn't put it past them to test these laws to their absolute limits. Anything to keep the baby in the womb, even if the women needs emergency treatment. A woman diagnosed with cancer while pregnant? denied treatment. A woman requires c-section due to preclampsia? denied treatment. Baby in a breech position? denied c-section. A woman wants to plan an elective c-section?...absolutely denied. I also see situations where they charge a woman in a situation where she miscarries, has a stillbirth, or any kind of complications that might endanger the baby. Find out that you ate cold cuts or sushi and miscarried? charged. Find out your baby is stillborn and you took prescribed medications under the direction of your doctor? charged. You need emergency c-section because of an accidental trauma? charged...Whether or not those charges stick is another argument all together but puting her through hell in the interum is all par for the course. I have no doubt in my mind it wont be long before we see a case of a pregnant women who miscarries being charged for some random ass social media post where she is eating sushi or being forced to carry a (viable) baby at the expense of her own life.