Amber Nicole Thurman’s death from an infection in 2022 is believed to be the first confirmed maternal fatality linked to post-Roe bans.

Reproductive justice advocates have been warning for more than two years that the end of Roe v. Wade would lead to surge in maternal mortality among patients denied abortion care—and that the increase was likely to be greatest among low-income women of color. Now, a new report by ProPublica has uncovered the first such verified death. A 28-year-old medical assistant and Black single mother in Georgia died from a severe infection after a hospital delayed a routine medical procedure that had been outlawed under that state’s six-week abortion ban.

Amber Nicole Thurman’s death, in August 2022, was officially deemed “preventable” by a state committee tasked with reviewing pregnancy-related deaths. Thurman’s case is the first time a preventable abortion-related death has come to public attention since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, ProPublica’s Kavitha Surana reported.

Now, “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of the abortion-rights group Reproductive Freedom for All, during a call with media. “It cannot go on.”

    • @Buffalox
      link
      48
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      No they are not pro life, and they should never be allowed to use that term or make that claim without protests.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        422 days ago

        They are anti-abortion. That is as far as it goes. They don’t care about giving an expecting mother pre-natal care if she can’t afford it. The certainly don’t give a shit about post-natal care. And if there’s something wrong with her baby an they both die? That’s “god’s will.”

        All they care about is making and keeping abortion illegal. It’s that binary of an issue for them and it’s sick.

        • TheTechnician27
          link
          English
          14
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          It’s so fucking comical to me too that they call it “god’s will” when children die of the most horrifying, excruciating diseases imagnable long before they’re capable of understanding what’s happening, but when a pregnant woman makes an informed decision not to die during childbirth over a shrimp living inside her taco, that’s a bridge too far, and the all-mighty creator and ruler of the universe is very disappointed in you for killing one of his children when he was powerless to stop it.

          Sweetie, maybe your fairytale sugar daddy’s will isn’t all that benevolent. 💀

          • Flying Squid
            link
            102 days ago

            You would think that an omnipotent being could just prevent any abortion from happening if he didn’t want them to happen.

            • TheTechnician27
              link
              English
              72 days ago

              No, no, you see it’s free will. Which makes total sense, because god can’t possibly foresee what we’re going to do, which is a problem omniscient beings definitely struggle with. Or if he can foresee what we’re going to do and he is omniscient, then he’s not omnibenevolent because he had exact foreknowledge of what was going to happen and let it anyway. After all, why “test” if you already know the precise outcome if not to watch people suffer for fun? If you need people to learn lessons, why can’t you just magically teach them those lessons? And if you’re not capable of this, how are you omnipotent?

              Pick at most two of the three; you can’t have all of them.

                • TheTechnician27
                  link
                  English
                  5
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Christians are routinely taught that god is not just loving (“benevolent”) but all-loving (“omnibenevolent”). Here’s the Pope talking about how “tender” and “astonishing” and “gratuitous” god’s love is. 4:8 of the First Epistle of John in the Bible – part of the de jure and de facto source of truth about god for Christianity – reads: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”

                  Sure we could reduce that down to “omnibenevolent as long as you love him back”, as e.g. Proverbs 8:17 says “I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.” But even then, god heavily abuses those who love him. The Bible tries to justify this bizarre cosmic domestic abuse in the book of Job, but it’s one of the most ridiculous, fucked up stories imaginable where god literally bets with Satan that he can fuck up one of his most devoted follower’s life as much as he wants and he still won’t turn away from him.

        • snooggums
          link
          English
          112 days ago

          They are also against contraception, because they are pro forced birth.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            102 days ago

            I’d say they were pro forced birth except, as we see in this example, they don’t even care if there is no birth.

            • snooggums
              link
              English
              92 days ago

              They have a concept of a birth.

    • @puppy
      link
      13
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Seeing that they oppose school lunches, gun control and free healthcare, not your children’s lives either.

    • snooggums
      link
      English
      122 days ago

      They are pro forced birth. They don’t care about infants, children, or adults.

    • @barsquid
      link
      32 days ago

      If they were pro-life and consistent that lives are more important than human rights, they would also be clamoring for gun control on the basis of saving children’s lives in schools. Or, fuck, universal healthcare is an easy one, higher taxes for the wealthy aren’t even harming anyone’s rights and it saves lives.

      But it is actually about controlling women with medical slavery and claims about saving lives are all lies they don’t actually believe.