1388

A Texas Woman Died After Waiting 40 Hours for Miscarriage Care (www.propublica.org)

submitted 1 year ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

204 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Josseli Barnica grieved the news as she lay in a Houston hospital bed on Sept. 3, 2021: The sibling she’d dreamt of giving her daughter would not survive this pregnancy.

The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”

For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria.

Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection.

(page 3) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This situation is so insane that gut punching a pregnant woman could've saved her life. IT IS NOT WHAT I SUGGEST AT ALL. But as medical team didn't kill off the dangerous and doomed unbred for they feared the liability coming from theae weird laws, I guess, that could cross the mind of a father at least once*.

* If he was someone as fucked up as me, I guess.

[-] the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Texas state law allows abortion in cases of medical emergencies. The hospital was absolutely in the wrong here.

[-] Gerudo@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

This happened prior to the version of the law you posted.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Notice how that law is vague on the medical emergency aspects. When exactly is a women with an nonviable pregnancy a danger to the mother?

[-] the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

"Life-threatening condition" is a fairly wide umbrella. Given the number of people who die of sepsis every year, that sounds like a life-threatening condition to me. A substantial impairment is defined under federal law. Sepsis would likely also count there, too - it messes you up real badly, after all.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

https://www.reuters.com/legal/texas-judge-allows-woman-get-emergency-abortion-despite-state-ban-2023-12-07/

[-] the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That threat was because she could have sought a C-section. If I'm understanding this page correctly, one's fertility is reduced by about 13% after a C-section. If I'm not, feel free to show me how I got it wrong. Did that guy ever end up prosecuting anyone involved, though? Why would a judge side with the prosecution after a court literally gave her an order permitting her to do that?

load more comments (72 replies)

[-] arscynic@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago

“Those damn immigrants taking all our healthcare.”

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can hear the church lady's now, "omg that's awful, how did this happen???????" Oh well, gods plan.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024

1388 points (100.0% liked)

News

32981 readers

2422 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world