Her baby suffers from acrania—an untreatable, fatal condition—but Louisiana's abortion ban only allows exceptions if the mother's life is in danger.
Not true. Gov. Edwards signed Senate Bull 342 in June.
Today, Gov. John Bel Edwards announced that he has signed Senate Bill 342 by Sen. Katrina Jackson, which is relative to the application of Louisiana’s abortion statutes. While this legislation is similar to that passed in 2006, which is effective upon Roe V. Wade being overturned, Senate Bill 342 would expand the exceptions contained in the 2006 legislation to include instances of medical futility and ectopic pregnancies. Further, this bill will confirm what is unclear in the 2006 legislation, which is that emergency contraception is available under Senate Bill 342 for victims of rape and incest prior to when a pregnancy can be clinically diagnosed.
https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/3727
Here's the text on the medical futility exception:
(vi) The removal of an unborn child who is deemed to be medically futile. The diagnosis shall be a medical judgment certified by two qualified physicians and recorded in the woman's medical record. The medical procedure shall be performed in a licensed ambulatory surgical center or hospital. Upon the completion of the procedure, the physician shall submit an individual abortion report consistent with R.S. 40:1061.21 that includes appropriate evidence of the certified diagnosis.
https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=242567
https://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1289698
For some reason the hospital thinks this doesn't apply in this case, I'd be interested to know why. I expect the Louisiana Dept of Health will attempt a clarification on the applicability of the law to this condition.
From the article: "Earlier this month, the Louisiana Department of Health released a list of medical conditions that would make a pregnancy “medically futile” and clear the way for a pregnant person to get an abortion. At the time, medical professionals criticized the list as incomplete."
Right, they also said the list was not exhaustive. The judgement from two physicians applies in cases where there is a condition not listed.
And you don't think the vagueness of the law is going to make doctors and hospitals just "err on the side of caution" and refuse to do the abortion? Why would a hospital or doctor make themselves the target of the Right-Wing Legal Industrial Complex that would descend like a flight of valkyries at the mere possibility of an illegal abortion?
It's worth noting that a significant percentage of hospitals in the United States are run by either the Catholic Church or other religious organizations and thus they often take a much, much less accommodating stance toward even medically-necessary abortions than other hospitals do. Not sure if that's part of what is going on here, but it's worth considering as a possibility.
This is, of course, a great reason why we should have a National Health Service like the UK, but that's a much larger discussion that probably deserves its own thread.
