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

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.”

  • @[email protected]
    23•3 months ago

    I’ve seen pro-life folks argue that but they frame it like… “the law is fine and it’s a failure of the doctors not being willing to understand the law which led to deaths” and they’ll also follow that up by saying that even if women die, they’re saving more lives by preventing abortions so it’s a net positive.

    I find it difficult to argue against that perspective. That is, I disagree with them but also it’s hard to argue when they frame abortions as basically murder.

    • @someguy3
      12•3 months ago

      1. Do we want doctors to also be lawyers? Spend all their time reading and interpreting laws and studying case precident on every little scenario? There’s a reason why these are two separate and highly trained professions. We have a healthcare problem and we want doctors to spend their time doctoring, not lawyering. Also, it’s never so clear on the medical side anyway, these are judgement calls. So it will go to court and review and all that stuff. The prosecution can always find one doctor to say it wasn’t necessary.

      2. This is the old is fetus life.

      • @[email protected]
        4•3 months ago

        This is the old is fetus life.

        Yeah, and the problem there is that logic and science won’t change someone’s mind about it. It’s subjective from their perspective.

        • @[email protected]
          5•3 months ago

          Fetus is life, but contained within another life. Therefore, container’s life takes precedence.

    • @Fedizen
      10•3 months ago

      I think its easier to argue on premises. Why is abortion murder? The bible says life begins at first breath, etc…

      Edit: In the US its fairly easy, because you just have to get them to acknowledge its a religious belief. From there its easy to say that ‘well do you believe in the 1st amendment’ and note that establishment of religion is forbidden. Anti abortion laws have to be grounded in reality and from there its harder to argue that fetuses are persons.

      • @ZombiepirateEnglish
        10•3 months ago

        The bible also gives a magic abortion potion recipe that only works if the woman cheated, so it’s pretty rich to say that God disapproves.

        The Test for an Unfaithful Wife (Numbers 5)

        11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

        16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

        “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

        23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

        • @[email protected]
          4•3 months ago

          Plus, Jesus didn’t even mention abortion once. He ordered his followers to feed the poor, but now they fight against feeding the poor and fight for causes Jesus never talked about.

          I am beginning to think that true Christians are communists.

      • p3n
        -1•3 months ago

        Where does the Bible say life begins at first breath? I know that is says this, “13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13 NIV.

        If I were to argue on premises, then I would start with a higher premise: Why is murder illegal? If it is my religious belief that murder is wrong, then by your argument doesn’t that make homicide laws a violation of the 1st Amendment and thus unconstitutional?

        • @Fedizen
          1•3 months ago

          On a religious basis murder is legal anyway. There’s not a lot of real morality in the bible without serious cherry picking. The slaughter of Jericho, for instance where everyone, even children were slaughtered. At the end of the day law is always determined by human judgement: either through discourse directly or vigorous cherry picking of contradictory statements in holy scripture.

          As to life at first breath there’s Genesis 2, Adam became alive at first breath. Then as Zombiepirate noted the prescription for unfaithfulness (numbers 5) is to drink a potion that causes miscarriage, indicating that even if the bible considers a fetus to be a person, it has no problem executing them for the crimes of the mother.

    • @baru
      2•3 months ago

      I’ve seen pro-life folks

      Those people are NOT pro-life. They’re anti-abortion. It would be much better to use the correct term instead of pandering to the idea that it is about saving lives.