I wanted to talk about new laws limiting abortion and how they apply to miscarriages that require medical intervention. This isn’t a new topic, it comes up in the context of the religious directives that govern Catholic hospitals in the US, but I really think it deserves more practical, real-world discussion.
This is the text of the Heartbeat Bill, which is a proposed law in Ohio. Republicans acting on behalf of an extreme anti-abortion group introduced the bill prior to the 2012 election. Despite what national Republicans who are also paid media personalities have assured us about Republican lawmakers moderating their views regarding women, Republicans in Ohio plan to introduce the bill again.
This is the rule:
To amend section 4731.22 and to enact section 2919.19 of the Revised Code to generally prohibit an abortion of an unborn human individual with a detectable fetal heartbeat.
(E)(1) Except as provided in division (E)(2) or (3) of this section, no person shall knowingly perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn human individual that the pregnant woman is carrying and whose fetal heartbeat has been detected according to the requirements of division (C) of this section. Any person who acts based on the exception in division (E)(2) or (3) of this section shall so note in the pregnant woman’s medical records and shall specify in the pregnant woman’s medical records which of the exceptions the person invoked.
And this is the exception for the life of the mother:
(2)(a) A person is not in violation of division (E)(1) of this section if that person performs a medical procedure designed to or intended, in that person’s reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.
(b) Any person who performs a medical procedure as described in division (E)(2)(a) of this section shall declare in writing, under penalty of perjury, that the medical procedure is necessary, to the best of that person’s reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. That person shall also provide in that written document, under penalty of perjury, the medical condition of that pregnant woman that the medical procedure performed as described in division (E)(2)(a) of this section will assertedly address, and the medical rationale for the conclusion that the medical procedure is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.
(c) The person who performs a medical procedure as described in division (E)(2)(a) of this section shall place the written documentation required under division (E)(2)(b) of this section in the pregnant woman’s medical records and shall maintain a copy of the written documentation in the person’s own records for at least seven years.
(3) A person is not in violation of division (E)(1) of this section if that person has performed an examination for the presence of a fetal heartbeat in the fetus utilizing standard medical practice and that examination does not reveal a fetal heartbeat or the person has been informed by a physician who has performed the examination for fetal heartbeat that the examination did not reveal a fetal heartbeat.
Here are some physician accounts of how a prohibition on abortion and reliance on a fetal heartbeat as an indication of viability play out in medical treatment of miscarriages in some US hospitals that are governed by religious directives banning abortion:
Obstetrician–gynecologists working in Catholic-owned hospitals described cases in which abortion was medically indicated according to their medical judgment but, because of the ethics committee’s ruling, it was delayed until either fetal heartbeats ceased or the patient could be transported to another facility.
Might be time to start talking about thisPost + Comments (118)