This just reads like "whatever goes wrong with the laws we passed must be someone else’s fault".
They passed laws that threaten medical staff with prosecution, so yeah they'll hesitate at times. That seems like an obvious outcome.
josephcsible · 8h ago
So the procedure she needed was unambiguously legal, and the government even issued official guidance covering this exact scenario, but the hospital staff didn't want to do it anyway? This seems like 0% an issue with the law and 100% an issue with the hospital staff.
hackingonempty · 8h ago
It's known as a "chilling effect" of the law. For a professional it just isn't worth your time to get into nuance, the finer points of the law, or "guidance" when your license / livelihood is on the line.
There is a similar problem with prohibition and treating pain or whole classes of conditions that lead to chronic pain; many people are needlessly suffering because doctors are concerned with losing their license to prescribe.
jleyank · 9h ago
There is no ambiguity. What she wanted was right and proper. What others want is the work of the devil. Easy-peasy.
ranger_danger · 8h ago
I have to wonder what would have happened if there was a heartbeat and her life was in danger.
bell-cot · 8h ago
> Kat Cammack went to the emergency room in May 2024 where it was estimated she was five weeks into an ectopic pregnancy, there was no heartbeat and her life was at risk. Doctors determined she needed a shot of methotrexate to help expel her pregnancy but since Florida’s six week abortion ban had just taken effect medical staff were worried about losing their licenses or going to jail if they did.
Note the "ESTIMATED that she was five weeks into", vs. "six week abortion ban". There ain't no "Pregnancy +WW:D:HH:YY:MM" digital display on a woman's belly, and finding expert witnesses who'll estimate different numbers is seldom a challenge.
(Yeah, it'd be nice if the article could have added a paragraph or few about actual prosecutions under Florida's law, and what those looked like. But Guardian editorial policy seems to be "short & shallow".)
They passed laws that threaten medical staff with prosecution, so yeah they'll hesitate at times. That seems like an obvious outcome.
There is a similar problem with prohibition and treating pain or whole classes of conditions that lead to chronic pain; many people are needlessly suffering because doctors are concerned with losing their license to prescribe.
Note the "ESTIMATED that she was five weeks into", vs. "six week abortion ban". There ain't no "Pregnancy +WW:D:HH:YY:MM" digital display on a woman's belly, and finding expert witnesses who'll estimate different numbers is seldom a challenge.
(Yeah, it'd be nice if the article could have added a paragraph or few about actual prosecutions under Florida's law, and what those looked like. But Guardian editorial policy seems to be "short & shallow".)