SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ncy-yeni-glick

“Anything that fails in society, anything that’s broken, ends up being the emergency room’s problem,” one of the employees told me. Both of them suspected that the surge was being driven by diminished access to abortions, following the enactment, in 2021, of a state law known as S.B. 8, which banned the procedure after the sixth week of pregnancy in nearly all cases. A Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study recently showed that, in a nine-month period following the passage of S.B. 8, nearly ten thousand additional babies were born in Texas.

What conservative lawmakers hailed as the saving of infant lives, medical professionals I interviewed in rural Texas saw as a beleaguering challenge. According to state data, even before S.B. 8 half the counties in Texas were unequipped to treat pregnant women, lacking a single specialist in women’s health, such as an ob-gyn or a certified midwife. Multiple doctors told me that the overturning of Roe v. Wade, in June of 2022, exacerbated the crisis, as practitioners retired early or moved to states where they’d have more liberty to make medical judgments. So who, exactly, was supposed to handle the extra deliveries in women’s-health deserts such as Caldwell County? What would become of women in remote locales who experienced a hemorrhage or a ruptured fallopian tube?

Although it was illegal for the E.R. to turn away patients who needed urgent care, hospital workers in Luling couldn’t hide their reservations. “This is not the place you want to be,” one of them told pregnant patients. “It could end up tragic.” There wouldn’t be an anesthesiologist on hand to numb the pain with an epidural, much less an expert in maternal-fetal medicine. Not every patient was in a position to travel elsewhere, however. If a pregnant woman visited the Luling E.R. three times in a row, staff came to assume that she’d end up delivering there, whether they were prepared or not.

Great story from the New Yorker about all the consequences and side-effects of conservative policy and its consequences on this topic.

Like the state not creating conditions to have sufficient hospitals, especially that are properly staffed and equipped for live births and complications, to actually support their "pro-life/woman/baby/whatever the fuck they're calling it now" position.

The onus is purely on the individual, and if you're not wealthy enough to afford to travel to where there are services, especially on short notice if a complication is experienced, you're basically left to hope the local ER room can deliver the care you need or you're boned.

This speaks more broadly to issues with availability of health care and access to coverage and how many Americans rely on the ER which has a host of consequences, and of a young woman who many have died in TX as a result of TX laws around reproductive health care and access to it.

The wrinkle being that the young woman who died in this story was undocumented, brought over as a child, as if that should matter given the stated intent of the legislation and party policies.

Cause of death

Hypertensive cardiovascular disease associated with morbid obesity

other contributing factors
Pregnancy

Because as the article states, which I know has greatly upset at least one poster who don't appear to like accurate and blunt descriptions of things -

The autopsy capped more than three thousand pages of medical records chronicling the short life of Yeniifer Alvarez-Estrada Glick. None of the records from when Yeni was alive acknowledge that, given her multiple underlying conditions, an abortion would have increased her chances of survival. Only the autopsy put it plainly. “Pregnancy creates stress on the heart and can exacerbate underlying heart disease and cause hypertensive crises,” the medical examiner wrote, in naming pregnancy as a factor in Yeni’s death.

Because yes, every pregnancy is a health risk. Even if someone is completely health, a pregnancy can introduce all kinds of health complications. And as we see in the data on maternal mortality rates in the US, it sure seems like the "pro-life/mother/baby/whatever bullshit" states fare far worse than their more liberal counterparts on this.

So again, we have policies and outcomes that are in direct contradiction with the rhetoric from state Republicans in these states. And the consequence of that is girls and women are increasingly left to suffer and possibly die with non-viable pregnancies, or with potentially viable pregnancies that still place them at considerable personal risk.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If the poll is accurate, 62% of voters are for the amendment, 29% against, and 9% don't know of refused to answer. If you ignore the 9%, 68% are for the amendment. Well above the 60% requirement.

Even among GOP voters, 53% are for, 39% against, and 9% undecided. Therefore, approximately 57% of GOP voters are for the amendment.

With politics, one should never assume that anything will be easy.

[Rasulis]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ncy-yeni-glick



Great story from the New Yorker about all the consequences and side-effects of conservative policy and its consequences on this topic.

Like the state not creating conditions to have sufficient hospitals, especially that are properly staffed and equipped for live births and complications, to actually support their "pro-life/woman/baby/whatever the fuck they're calling it now" position.

The onus is purely on the individual, and if you're not wealthy enough to afford to travel to where there are services, especially on short notice if a complication is experienced, you're basically left to hope the local ER room can deliver the care you need or you're boned.

This speaks more broadly to issues with availability of health care and access to coverage and how many Americans rely on the ER which has a host of consequences, and of a young woman who many have died in TX as a result of TX laws around reproductive health care and access to it.

The wrinkle being that the young woman who died in this story was undocumented, brought over as a child, as if that should matter given the stated intent of the legislation and party policies.



Because as the article states, which I know has greatly upset at least one poster who don't appear to like accurate and blunt descriptions of things -



Because yes, every pregnancy is a health risk. Even if someone is completely health, a pregnancy can introduce all kinds of health complications. And as we see in the data on maternal mortality rates in the US, it sure seems like the "pro-life/mother/baby/whatever bullshit" states fare far worse than their more liberal counterparts on this.

So again, we have policies and outcomes that are in direct contradiction with the rhetoric from state Republicans in these states. And the consequence of that is girls and women are increasingly left to suffer and possibly die with non-viable pregnancies, or with potentially viable pregnancies that still place them at considerable personal risk.

Based on North Texas Regional Extension Center 2021 Staffing Survey.

• 185 counties in the Lone Star State with a combined population of more than 3.1 million people, equal to or greater than 21 states, have no psychiatrist.
• 158 Texas counties with a combined population of 1.9 million, equal to or greater than 14 states, have no general surgeon.
• 147 Texas counties with a combined population of more than 1.8 million people have no obstetrician/gynecologist.
• 80 counties have five or fewer physicians.
• 35 counties have no physician.

Even if you don't live in Texas, these numbers should scare anyone who cares about rural healthcare, because this crisis is not unique to Texas, which ranks 41st among 50 states in physicians per 100,000 residents.

"We're saying that more than 3 million people in the state of Texas don't have a psychiatrist. That is like saying Kansas doesn't have a psychiatrist. That is like saying the state of Nebraska or Montana doesn't have an OB. It's incredible," says Travis Singleton, senior vice president of Merritt Hawkins, who compiled the survey for NTREC.

"Sometime you have to put it that way to make people understand what we face."

"Some say you are manipulating data. Some of those counties don't have that many people and don't justify having an OB anyway. Yes, you do have a couple with 95 or 100 people. You will also have counties with 77,000 people in them without access," Singleton says.

"It also shows you how the problem is compounded by maldistribution. The vast majority of practitioners are in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin and this shows you what a strain that puts on the rest of the state. If you are an OB and you have your choice to go anywhere in the state, why would you go to a rural county with no support?"

Richard Howe, executive director of NTREC, says he hopes these stark numbers will open some eyes among Texas urbanites.

"There were some surprises. Those of us in urban areas think there are plenty of physicians and we have a high number of physicians per capita in urban areas," Howe says. "But you don't have to get far out of Dallas and it jumps rural pretty quick. We didn't realize how void some of these medical specialties would be throughout the state of Texas."

"That population with obesity, diabetes, (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and congestive heart failure is the same population, way above the averages, for individuals with needs for mental health services," Howe says. "If you don't have mental health capacity in the state, that is going to have a big impact on healthcare in general and will increase our incidences of these chronic diseases.

Urban Shortages Too

The physician shortage isn't just in rural Texas. Urban Texas is feeling the provider pinch within primary care. There are 375 federally designated Health Care Professional Shortage Areas in Texas with a dearth of primary care physicians and many of them are in the state's most populous counties, including Dallas, Harris, and Bexar.

Texas ranks second in the nation in the percentage of physicians who remain in independent private practice, although more physicians in the state are turning to hospital employment, part-time practice, and concierge medicine that reduce hours and accessibility. They also are less likely to accept Medicaid and Medicare payments than physicians in other states.

"It's not just the rural isolated counties where it is the issue," Singleton says. "You could be in downtown Dallas, depending on what kind of patient you are and what kind of provider you need, and you could have an issue. Five or 10 years ago you could look at a provider map and say are they employed or independent? Now you need to know practice patterns, who they are affiliated with, what resources do they have, are they urgent care, concierge? You just can't say they are family practitioners anymore."

[Edge-]

Despite some telling us, "The extremists are the minority, they're going away!" we keep seeing them pop up and do things -

https://archive.is/xaepM

On the eve of the opening of the Florida legislative session, a Republican lawmaker filed a bill that essentially bans all abortions in Florida.

Miami-Dade County Rep. David Borrero’s proposed bill (HB 1519), filed Monday, states that “a person or an entity may not purposely perform or attempt to perform an abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” The proposed bill says “a person exists from the moment of fertilization.”

Two big problems:

1. As has been extensively discussed, it sure seems like the "except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency." sounds a lot like the bad language in those other states that leave women bleeding until they're on the verge of death before a hospital can perform a medically necessary abortion due to the liability and legal jeopardy it puts the hospital in. The outcome we've been seeing for well over a year is: Girls and women suffer and pay more money.

2. If, as the bill states, a person exists "from the moment of fertilization" then the state is going to need to get WAY more involved in people sex lives to ensure that the state can accurately track when new residents are fertilized and begin treating the woman as a multi-occupancy vehicle. It opens a host of practical legal questions like, "Do pregnant women all automatically count as carpools even when driving by themselves? How does law enforcement ascertain the number of people in the vehicle if more than two are needed to qualify? Do pregnant folks need to carry ultrasounds with a doctors note? It also brings up a host of tax related questions - can they start claiming child benefits the moment the egg is fertilized? How are they even gonna find that out in time to remain in accordance with the law? Are all sexually active women going to have to submit pee tests to the state each week or something? Will they have grace periods? Can you claw back taxes paid or fees for carpool lanes if you find out you were pregnant when those fees and taxes were paid/assessed?

His proposal includes penalties for physicians who perform abortions. It says “performing or attempting to perform an abortion” would be a third-degree felony, subject to as much as 10 years in prison or with a fine of up to $100,000, “or both.” The mothers would not be charged with a crime for obtaining an abortion.

In which, again, this is an intentional recreation of the suffering of women in other states. Doctors and hospitals will not accept that kind of liability and Republicans would know it if they actually cared and bothered to look at the outcomes in other states. In this case, Rep. David Borrero apparently does not care at all and can't be bothered to see the outcomes in other states.

Obviously this is very much against the general sentiment of Florida voters, and hopefully the ballot measure will pass soon protecting access to health care.

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ll-1234944546/

As previously reported by Rolling Stone, Trump has privately speculated that he could run as a “moderate” on abortion, an idea that becomes laughable in the face of his record on the issue as president. The former president has also publicly voiced concerns that the GOP is shooting itself in the electoral foot by backing hardline, extremely restrictive anti-abortion policies. He didn’t seem worried on Wednesday, though, when he was asked by an undecided voter for reassurance that he would maintain his commitment to the pro-life cause if elected.

“That is a great question, appreciate it, too,” Trump responded, adding that she “wouldn’t be asking that question, [or] even talking about the issue — for 54 years they were trying to get Roe V. Wade terminated, and I did it. and I’m proud to have done it.”

Republicans: This is truly your baby now and there's absolutely no running from it. The current frontrunner for the parties presidential candidate, y'all.

Also for what it's worth: He didn't do shit. He just nominated groomed, trained, activist judges on lists curated by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society and get them rubber-stamped by a Republican Senate, including one seat that the Republican Senate held open for a year specifically hoping to fill it with a conservative activist judge.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ll-1234944546/

Also for what it's worth: He didn't do shit. He just nominated groomed, trained, activist judges on lists curated by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society and get them rubber-stamped by a Republican Senate, including one seat that the Republican Senate held open for a year specifically hoping to fill it with a conservative activist judge.

Yeah, if anyone deserves "credit" for it...it's good ol Moscow Mitch. First, by making it his #1 priority to get Conservative Judges in all the courts. And second by blocking Obama from appointing a replacement for Scalia.

[D3thray]

He'll just deny like he did with the last lady who needed an abortion and ended up having to flee the state to get needed healthcare.

All other issues aside, I wondered how that case had time to work it’s way thru the system if it was indeed an emergency.

[bladeXcrasher]

All other issues aside, I wondered how that case had time to work it’s way thru the system if it was indeed an emergency.

Because doctor's are refusing to make that decision...but if you really wondered you could just read a Texas Tribune article.

[Rasulis]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ll-1234944546/



Republicans: This is truly your baby now and there's absolutely no running from it. The current frontrunner for the parties presidential candidate, y'all.

Also for what it's worth: He didn't do shit. He just nominated groomed, trained, activist judges on lists curated by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society and get them rubber-stamped by a Republican Senate, including one seat that the Republican Senate held open for a year specifically hoping to fill it with a conservative activist judge.

Never had any doubt. All GOP candidates were cut from the same cloth. Only the truly naive would believe otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

He'll just deny like he did with the last lady who needed an abortion and ended up having to flee the state to get needed healthcare.

Patients are not the only ones that have to go out of states. Hospitals in the Southern States are now sending their residents for their OB/Gyn rotation to California. UCSF OB/Gyn department now are full of medical residents from anti-abortion states.

[Edge-]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/kell...raception-2024

[Politico reports that Conway plans to tell Republican lawmakers that the key to big wins this year is to focus less on the gutting of abortion access, and more on vocally supporting access to birth control, the logic apparently being that people will be grateful for what they can get (and too dumb to notice what they’re not getting). “You’ve got a fair number of Democrats saying that they want an alternative to [Joe] Biden and [Kamala] Harris, or they may sit it out,” Conway told Politico. “He’s especially bleeding young voters, who you would think would be animated and interested to hear about [contraception], and who are in the prime of their years and choosing to conceive or not to conceive.” Using an extremely strange analogy, Independent Women’s Voice CEO Heather Higgins told the outlet, “Republicans are like your uncle, who really loves you and loves the women in his family, but he’s bad about showing it. It’s just not in their natural vocabulary. And we’re trying to help them learn how to make this be more part of their vocabulary and tell them that they need to talk about these things that their constituents all support, and be more visible and vocal.”

First off, I'm not sure, "Our party took away protections for abortion access, but we haven't taken away access to contraceptives yet!" is the slogan she thinks it is.

Also I'm unsure about how comparing the Republican party to your creepy uncle who keeps getting handsy with all his nieces and shit is a good thing?

Man, it's no wonder that younger folks and women keep fleeing the Republican party.

[Gestopft]

Republicans voicing strong support of birth control will not happen.

[s_bushido]

Heather Higgins told the outlet, “Republicans are like your uncle, who really loves you and loves the women in his family, but he’s bad about showing it.

...more like your uncle who beats his wife and kids, saying "this hurts me more than it hurts you" while he's doing it.

But good luck securing that youth vote, when Republicans are so much worse on all the actual reasons they're turning against Biden. Idiots.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Because doctor's are refusing to make that decision...but if you really wondered you could just read a Texas Tribune article.

You can't make unreasonable demands like that... :P

[Levelfive]

You can't make unreasonable demands like that... :P

"If it's an emergency, just use the system to qualify for a for the very helpful exemptions. Also, if you use the system to qualify for an exemption, it wasn't really an emergency."

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/polit...ons/index.html

It appears some Republicans ARE maybe paying attention. Which is good in a sense. But also at the same point, I guess the strength of his convictions was weaker than the strength of his desire to be North Carolina's governor.

North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, the state’s second highest-ranking elected official and its leading Republican candidate for governor in 2024, once hailed banning abortion as his top priority, advocating for its complete ban without exceptions.

“For me, there is no compromise on abortion. It makes no difference to me why or how that child ended up in that womb,” he said in July 2020 while campaigning for lieutenant governor.

At the time, Robinson was a political newcomer, having built his campaign off his work as a conservative influencer espousing support for gun rights, law enforcement and “protecting the life of the unborn.”

Clear and unequivocal. A terrible opinion too, but I digress.

Now, as the 2024 GOP front-runner for governor, Robinson avoids mentioning abortion on the campaign trail, claiming recently that he stopped using what he calls the “a-word,” preferring instead to use the word “life.”

Well yeah, the "a-word", as Republicans have found out, is incredible unpopular.

He’s also softened his position. Robinson denies ever supporting abortion bans without exceptions, publicly stating that he has always struggled with the issue and confirming that he once paid for an abortion for his then-girlfriend, now-wife in the 1980s, an experience he says he fully regrets.

Nevermind, he's also a liar. It's one thing to change your beliefs, even if they were strongly held. It's another to change then and then pretend you never changed them.

But in comments reviewed by CNN’s KFile dating back to 2018, Robinson regularly labeled abortion as “murder” and “genocide,” comparing the anti-abortion movement to the abolitionist movement to end slavery. He also baselessly speculated that the founders of Planned Parenthood were satanists who practiced witchcraft.

Robinson characterized women who undergo abortions, even if they are just “24 hours pregnant,” as murderers.

Robinson’s current position, his office has said, is support for so-called “heartbeat” legislation, which could ban abortion after a “heartbeat” is detected — but with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

If victorious in this year’s election, Robinson would be the first Black governor in the state’s history.

This is really just a great reminder of why Republicans cannot, and should not, be trusted on this issue. Ever.

[Gelannerai]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/polit...ons/index.html

It appears some Republicans ARE maybe paying attention. Which is good in a sense. But also at the same point, I guess the strength of his convictions was weaker than the strength of his desire to be North Carolina's governor.



Clear and unequivocal. A terrible opinion too, but I digress.



Well yeah, the "a-word", as Republicans have found out, is incredible unpopular.



Nevermind, he's also a liar. It's one thing to change your beliefs, even if they were strongly held. It's another to change then and then pretend you never changed them.



This is really just a great reminder of why Republicans cannot, and should not, be trusted on this issue. Ever.

So, by his own logic, he’s a murderer then? Funny shit.

[DarkTZeratul]

So, by his own logic, he’s a murderer then? Funny shit.

If you're looking for consistency in a politician's anti-abortion rhetoric, you're going to be here all day.

[Surfd]

So, by his own logic, he’s a murderer then? Funny shit.

No no no no. HE's not a murderer. It's his wife who's the murderer. I mean, it's important to remember that the woman, and ONLY the woman, is always responsible for everything involving a pregnancy, despite the fact that, as a general rule, a man is always involved in them at some point.

[Edge-]

https://helenair.com/news/state-regi...b88fffa83.html

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has blocked a ballot proposal seeking to create a constitutional right to abortion, labeling the initiative “legally insufficient” after a required review by his office.

In a memorandum dated Jan. 16, Knudsen said the proposed ballot initiative spearheaded by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, Ballot Measure #14, improperly “logrolls multiple distinct political choices into a single initiative” and limits the state’s ability to protect public health and safety.

“Ballot Measure 14 creates an express right to abortion but denies voters the ability to express their views on the nuance of the right. This is classic logrolling and is prohibited by Article XIV, Section 11” of the Montana Constitution, Knudsen wrote.

It's a right or it's not.

This sure tracks with Republicans consistent efforts to stop voters from having a say on this topic, now that they've realized that their position as a political party is extremist and consistently majority unpopular.

But no nuance?

If advocates are successful in court and clear the other hurdles leading up to November, voters will get to weigh in on the constitutional initiative that, in the language drafted, “affirms the right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion, in the Montana Constitution.”

The proposal continues to state that, if approved, the amendment “prohibits the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability. Additionally, the amendment ensures that the government cannot deny or burden access to an abortion when it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health. This constitutional amendment prevents the government from punishing patients, health care providers, or anyone who assists someone in seeking reproductive care, including abortion care.”

Well that...all seems pretty reasonable to enshrine access to health care and is pretty similar to what we've seen passed in other states.

In his legal review, Knudsen said the proposed ballot language would preclude elected officials from enacting reasonable regulations and restrictions on abortion when the practice is determined “medically necessary.”

“This clause makes it so even regulations that serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to that interest cannot survive,” Knudsen wrote.

Does it? Knudsen doesn't appear to provide an example of the kinds of "compelling state interests" and the kinds of "narrowly tailored" regulations that this amendment would prevent.

Knudsen also said that, as written, the constitutional amendment would preclude Montanans from passing future regulations on abortion that reflect their nuanced and complicated views on the issue, particularly in relation to fetal viability and various health risks to the pregnant patient.

Well yes to a point...it's an amendment to the state constitution. That's what state (and federal) constitutions largely do. However they can always be changed should the view of Montanan's change over the years, that's the literal purpose of amendments.

Which leaves me with two possible conclusions:

AG Knudsen does not know what a Constitution is and how it differs from laws, including that Constitutions can be amended. Despite this being a case of a literal amendment.

AG Knudsen does know this, and is lying and dishonestly trying to frame this as an extreme, irreversible move when it is neither of those things.

“First, voters’ views on abortion change dramatically based on the specific timeframe of pregnancy in which the abortion occurs.

If they don't agree with the amendment they can vote against it, then. Easy peasy.

Second, states commonly treat physical and psychological conditions differently.

Ok but how does Montana treat those conditions? Because this is a Montana amendment. He doesn't appear to specificy/clarify.

States also commonly use qualifying language to clarify when an abortion is medically necessary

As noted: Asking the state to specify which conditions and circumstances exceptions are allowed and which aren't achieves the same exact effects of blanket bans as we've seen in Texas and other states where women are often left to suffer and risk death because hospitals will not accept the legal risk from an overtly hostile state.

Ballot Measure 14 creates an express right to abortion but denies voters the ability to express their views on the nuance of the right.

It literally does. You agree with the measure or you don't. If it's as "extreme" as AG Knudsen appears to believe it is, surely it would be rejected by the good, moral folks of Montana, right?

Knudsen’s office previously blocked a different ballot initiative related to the creation of a top-four primary system in Montana, citing similar concerns about “logrolling” multiple subjects into one proposal. The coalition behind that ballot initiative filed a legal challenge over Knudsen’s decision and was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court within weeks, clearing the way for signature collection.

Huh, seems like he's found a word he really likes and is just opposing anything that might put Republican elections or policies at risk because the voters will have a direct say.

[Rasulis]

Another horror story.

The day before—Labor Day—we had checked into the ER after I began to bleed at work. At nine weeks pregnant, I feared the worst, but hoped it was nothing. Panicking at my desk, I immediately called my best friend, who told me to go straight to the emergency room.

At the ER, that panic deepened. The Dobbs decision, by the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, had been passed three months earlier and for the first two hours in the waiting room, I could only think of how that decision would now trickle down to me, here.

My brain anxiously cycled through every bad scenario that could happen. My concern wasn't misplaced.

I was eventually called back for bloodwork and asked questions that were probably standard, but sounded increasingly cold and accusatory, about why I was there. I repeated for what seemed the tenth time that I thought I was having a miscarriage.

Questions, tests, and information collected, I was sent back to the waiting room with my husband. Several hours, a sonogram, and transvaginal ultrasound later, a kind doctor and two nurses told me they were 98 percent sure I was beginning a miscarriage.

There was no heartbeat. There was nothing to save. Miscarriages don't reverse themselves, despite what politicians may think.

Tired and numb, my husband and I asked what I could expect in the days to come. We had been down this path before, but not in Texas. For years, we struggled with infertility and suffered several pregnancy losses with complications.

I lost my first pregnancy in Washington, DC at 15 weeks. My doctors were wonderful and compassionate and immediately arranged for me to have a D&C—a procedure often used in abortions—because I was too far along to miscarry on my own and to limit the trauma of my loss. The only pain I woke to after that surgery was emotional, not physical.

Back in Texas, the attending doctor in the ER told me I was free to take Advil for pain (when you're pregnant you can't take ibuprofen) and that I should return only if I became feverish, filled a heavy pad with blood every hour or was nauseous.

Before we left, I asked him and the nurse if things had changed since the Dobbs decision. Without hesitation, they both said yes, clearly upset. Every OB they knew was trying to leave Texas.

As a woman who has dealt with infertility issues and miscarriages over the last six years, I've had my share of bad days. The next day was unnecessarily the worst day of my life.

For nearly five hours I alternate between lying in a fetal position on our bathroom floor and curling up against the wall, shivering uncontrollably one moment, and burning up the next.

I vomit three times on the floor. I rock back and forth in tears, repeating out loud, to myself, to God, to my husband and my dog on the other side of the door, to please, please make this stop. The pain is so blinding that I think I'm hallucinating.

It goes on so long, I don't have the energy to scream, at what feels like every single bone in my body crumbling, my body breaking apart, collapsing into itself. Between each new wave of pain that comes, I try to focus on the broken grout between the floor tiles.

I pass out twice. I am terrified that I will die.

No one should have to fear they may die because of a miscarriage. And yet, for women like me in the United States, in Texas, that fear is very real.

I Miscarried in Texas. My Doctors Put Abortion Law First

When my husband and I return for the second time to the ER, we explain what happened. The pain is too intense, too deep for me to think about anything else. I'm given a wheelchair this time and I sit weeping in the waiting room, until I'm brought back for more bloodwork, and then finally, to a bed.

A doctor wearing cowboy boots under his scrubs comes in, and asks me if I want "some real pain relief." A nurse gives me the first of three rounds of fentanyl and jokes that "it's better than the cartel's stuff." Within a minute, the pain vanishes.

Sonograms and a CAT scan are needed to rule out other things. But the technicians that do this are an hour away, so we wait. I'm eventually returned to my bed and my husband. Minutes later, the doctor becomes concerned when my white blood cell count skyrockets, fearing an infection.

I remember hearing the rising, alarming series of beeps from a monitor and my husband's voice fielding calls from our family in Virginia and Oregon. I hear the fear in their voices, asking him to get me out of there and for a flight to California or any safe state—a desperate, hopeful, impossible request.

I'm given more fentanyl as the pain returns and more hours pass waiting. Around 5:30am, the doctor returns. As he opens his mouth to start talking, I stop him and tell him I need the bathroom because I feel something leaving me. That something was my placenta, which the doctor and nurse came in to collect for biopsy.

The doctor confirms, to the surprise of absolutely no one, that I'm miscarrying. He prescribes hydrocodone and an anti-inflammatory drug.

Before I'm discharged, I asked him to be frank with me—why wasn't I offered a D&C—a surgery that clears the uterine lining after a miscarriage and spares women the physical trauma of experiencing what I did over those two days—or misoprostol—a medication used to treat miscarriages, but also used for medicated abortions? Did the Dobbs decision affect how women were now treated in the ER?

Like the doctor the previous night, he sighed heavily: "Yes."

He said that doctors now felt pressure because of lawyers and that today, because my HCG levels were going down (confirming pregnancy loss) he was in a better position to recommend to an OB what the attending doctor the previous night could not.

Lawyers, not women's lives, were now the overriding concern.

In Texas, doctors who perform abortions face fines of up to $100,000 and life in prison. Texas has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country and while it allows exceptions when the patient's life is in danger, the law is vaguely worded, making doctors hesitant to do anything that may jeopardize their career.

So much unnecessary sufferings.