Death of Georgia woman becoming a dangerous political tool

She was given two legal abortion pills and died due to complications from them. Harris and others are suggesting was due to Roe v Wade being overturned.

This is one of those illogical emotional pleas that liberals use to get their supporters all riled up. Of course with the left, it is all about abortion, abortion, some more abortion with a little bit of saving democracy thrown in. They really offer no other plan at this point.

So when an opportunity comes for them to hijack the truth in the name of politics, you better believe they are going to do it. In this case, they are arguing that the death of a women due to complications of an abortion pill is not the fault of these pills being given without adequate medical screening, or the fault of these types of abortion clinics not having adequate medical facilities to deal with certain testing or complications, but rather it is the fault of the USSC for putting abortion laws back to the states.

The argument appears to be that the new laws create "fear and uncertainty" with doctors who are now reluctant to perform certain procedures. The procedure that was necessary is called a D&C and is not allowed if the fetus has a heartbeat, as the procedure would effectively be an abortion at that point. According to those familiar with the case, this was certainly a circumstance where the D&C is allowable as the abortion pill had already ended the pregnancy. There was no heartbeat to prevent the procedure.

At issue was the timing and whether or not the hospital in question was slow to proceed because of new laws, or that they simply were negligent in not pushing the procedure faster. Obviously Harris and pro-choice groups are arguing that the new laws slowed down the treatment and that is because of the overturning of Roe v Wade. But again, there doesn't appear to any reason why any of these laws would have applied to this situation. The hospital had a legal right to perform the procedure based on the circumstances.

The backstory is that the woman in question appeared to have some pre-existing conditions where the pregnancy could have caused her medical issues. This was compounded by the fact she was carrying twins. But these potential issues were not imminent or acute, which is the criteria under the law that would allow her to terminate the pregnancy. In other words, the health of the mother would be a possible issue throughout the pregnancy, but would need to become imminent or acute before the pregnancy could be terminated.

The woman went ahead and decided on her own to take abortion pills (which is still a loophole around many abortion bans in many states) to end the pregnancy. She took one at a clinic and one on her own, and then she ended up with the complications at issue. This is where the facts become a little murky. We know she did seek medical care, and the procedure needed was not performed in time to save her. Whether this was because she waited too long or because the doctors waited too long is still at issue. It was said that the surgery took place 20 hours after she came to seek care. I don't know if that considered a long time or not. But there does not appear (contrary to popular belief) to have been any legal reasons why she could not have gotten the procedure in question and that worrying about the law had anything to do with it.

At the end of the day, one could argue that if Georgia allowed full access to abortion that the woman would not have had to take abortion pills. That being said, many pro-choice advocates are pushing the abortion pill as an easier means to abort a fetus. So something like this may have still been recommended over an actual abortion in this situation. I am not a doctor and cannot say for sure whether a physical abortion or an abortion pill has more chances for medical issues. Certainly both have possible side effects that could lead to serious issues up to and including death. Someone dying from an abortion or an abortion pill is a reality for those who are pro-choice. Whenever there is a push to make abortions clinics safer by holding them to higher medical standards, the pro-choice crowd fights it every time as too many abortion clinics would not qualify.

Bottom line: Access is always more important than safety to the pro-choice crowd. This makes it difficult to see the point in blaming pro-lifers for someone dying from a side effect from an abortion procedure that the pro-choice crowd supports. Not only does this crowd support these procedures and pills, but they want them provided generously to everyone and with as little medical supervision as possible, because medical supervision can slow down and limit access.