New report indicates Georgia woman died because hospital wouldn't provide abortion
Twenty-eight-year-old Amber Nicole Thurman could have lived had the hospital performed needed procedure
ProPublica had an excellent investigative report about a woman in Georgia who died because she couldn’t get a routine abortion procedure after she suffered complications from taking abortion medication.
Today, they published a story about 28-year-old Amber Nicole Thurman, who died in 2022 after the state’s abortion ban went into effect. A state committee found that her death would be preventable. The news site plans to publish stories on additional cases shortly.
In response, Mini Timmaraju, Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO, released the following statement.
“Amber would be alive right now if it wasn’t for Donald Trump and Brian Kemp’s abortion ban. They have blood on their hands. These devastating bans not only blocked Amber from accessing an abortion in her state, but they also delayed the routine, life-saving care she later needed, leaving her to suffer and die.
“It doesn’t have to be this way. We can and must win a reproductive freedom majority in Congress so Kamala Harris can sign a bill restoring a federal right to abortion ending bans like Georgia’s.”
The law, the Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act, was enacted in July 2022. Still, only a few months later, it was struck down by Judge Robert McBurney of the Superior Court of Fulton County, who called the ban “unequivocally unconstitutional,” according to reporting done by the Georgia Reporter. The case had been known as Sistersong v. State of Georgia.
Georgia’s Supreme Court allowed the six-week abortion ban to take effect in October 2023.
It isn’t likely there will be any remediation anytime soon. Republicans have the trifecta of power in the state: the governor’s office, the house, and the state senate. Democrats did see gains in the state house in the last election.
In my research, women suffering from septic infections from incomplete abortions were commonplace before Roe v. Wade. It was a challenging thing for emergency doctors to treat. Many women died. Though medical advancements have been made, delays in care can cause issues in pregnancy to become fatal.
This isn’t the only instance where a woman wasn’t provided the needed care. Last month, I reported on a Kansas woman suing a hospital for not adhering to a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires doctors and medical staff to provide necessary care in ER settings.
Farmer had arrived at the Kansas hospital the night of the election that determined the fate of abortion rights. According to the complaint, the hospital was reluctant to provide care until the political situation had been clarified. Voters shot down an abortion ban that night. Farmer later obtained a life-saving abortion at an Illinois clinic.
Similar issues have been at the center of lawsuits in Idaho and Texas. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on EMTALA. The lawsuit, Moyle v. United States, centers on whether an Idaho abortion ban conflicts with a federal law that ensures universal standards of care within emergency rooms.
The Biden Administration challenged an Idaho law known as the Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless they save the mother’s life. The Supreme Court decided that it would permit hospitals in Idaho to perform abortions in emergency settings. But the victory was temporary if the opinion was in its final form. The lawsuit went back to the Court of Appeals.