It’s official: we Ohio voters said “no” to Issue 1. I’m relieved, as many others are as well.
There are many, many things that can be said now that we’re no longer afraid of this passing.
I’m still wondering why, after our state made the news last summer for all the wrong reasons, some of our leaders doubled down on blocking abortion access. I know that abortion is an upsetting topic, but I’m still ashamed and disgusted that a 10-year-old r*pe victim had to travel out of Ohio for her procedure.
I understand, and I agree that the baby is not at fault for the horror perpetrated against the mother. But demanding that a little girl effectively be an incubator (when she, by no means, should have to be a mother WHEN SHE’S JUST A CHILD) is reprehensible.
Even after our state got lambasted by so many others for our rules driving a child out of state, some of our leadership doubled down on their views. Our Attorney General, Dave Yost, joined other state AGs in demanding states’ rights to access medical records of women who go out of their home state for an abortion.
That was jarring to read about, to put it mildly. And then, I’ve recently learned about a challenge to Texas’s severe anti-abortion law.
Abortion Rights Struggle in Texas
I’m not sure how much coverage this has gotten compared to the Ohio measure, but there’s been a recent battle for abortion rights in Texas. State District Judge Jessica Mangrum ruled that Texas’s current abortion law, which forbids all abortions except for when the mother is at risk of dying or suffering major bodily impairment, is too restrictive.
I read that the ruling also applies to situations when the fetus/baby has a condition that would almost certainly result in dying soon after birth.
Unfortunately, the relief didn’t last long. The attorney general’s office quickly filed an appeal with Texas’s Supreme Court, rendering the ruling null.
When I read this article on the matter, I read that Texas’s assistant attorney general, Amy Pletscher, wanted the case to be dismissed altogether and also told Judge Mangrum that it was the doctors who failed these mothers.
No, not Texas’s abortion law that forbids any mother who isn’t at death’s door from receiving a possibly life-saving procedure.
Frankly, how dare she diminish these mothers’ suffering. Not to mention, it’s ridiculous for the doctors to be blamed when, per Texas’s law, they weren’t allowed to intervene.
Heartbreaking Testimonies
I wanted to know more about this case in Texas, and I found these testimonies from some of the plaintiffs. What they endured is horrifying.
Content/Trigger Warning: Distressing Subject Matter in Next Video
Samantha Casiano laid her trauma bare before the court. I’m so, so sorry for the nightmare she was put through.
Her baby had anencephaly, a severe and life-threatening condition where the baby’s brain and/or skull isn’t fully developed. Samantha was told that her daughter would die, no matter what.
Regardless, because her daughter hadn’t died, Samantha was given no choice but to wait for her to be born. Her daughter only lived for 4 hours in excruciating pain, being born with severe deformities.
Samantha wished that her baby had been put to rest sooner to avoid briefly living, only to be in unbearable agony. She viewed what happened as merciless, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Here’s what Amanda Zurawski, the head plaintiff, shared with BBC News:
Despite losing all of her amniotic fluid, her cervix prematurely dilating, having ruptured membranes, and being told that with all of her symptoms, her child wouldn’t survive, Amanda was denied an abortion because her baby’s heart was still beating. While Amanda wasn’t physically well, she wasn’t “sick enough” to qualify for a Texas-justified abortion or healthcare that would’ve inadvertently resulted in the death of the fetus.
Amanda made it clear in her interview that, per Texas laws, all of the doctors she and her husband visited were prohibited from intervening. Any attempt to remove the fetus, even if it wasn’t explicitly an abortion, would’ve been illegal because of the heartbeat.
It took Amanda getting sepsis (blood poisoning), thus putting her life at risk before the ethics board at her hospital deemed it acceptable to give her the health care she needed.
Remembering Savita
There are so many chilling parallels between Amanda’s suffering and the death of Savita Halappanavar, who died in Ireland back in 2012 from similar circumstances. Savita had Amanda’s symptoms and soon developed severe sepsis. Despite being in obvious pain, and even when Savita merely asked to be induced to end the pregnancy, she was told that because of the lingering heartbeat, nothing could be done.
When the heartbeat ceased, the doctors finally removed the fetus. But by then, Savita’s condition had severely worsened. She passed away just a couple of days later.
Amanda could’ve died the same way.
The Challenge
Amanda, alongside the other plaintiffs in this case, has challenged the state of Texas and demanded clarity for the abortion law.
Note that their goal isn’t to add an acceptable amount of time, such as 6 weeks, for abortion procedures to be done. Nor are they seeking to repeal the abortion law altogether. The plaintiffs are merely demanding that under the “life in danger” exception, the state expands the exceptions to prevent more needless suffering.
Even then, the state is refusing to budge. Texas has gone so far as to request that this case be dismissed.
The state’s responses to the plaintiffs and this case have been reprehensible. This article on the trial, written by The Independent, mentions that the state’s attorneys asked one of the plaintiffs if state officials had personally told her that she couldn’t have an abortion.
To her credit, the plaintiff in question, Dr. Austin Dennard, quipped back that she “hadn’t thought to ask him”.
As an aside, I don’t understand how those attorneys got away with such a petty jab.
The Independent’s article also mentions quotes on the matter from Dr. Ingrid Skop, the state’s expert witness. Dr. Skop argued that the plaintiffs’ doctors “knew” that they were allowed to intervene and shouldn’t have waited until the women were at risk of dying before providing healthcare.
Dr. Skop’s view on the matter echoes what Texas’s assistant attorney general, Amy Pletscher, said about the doctors “failing” the mothers. It’s horribly dismissive for them to avoid acknowledging that the state’s laws prevented the doctors from taking any action that could’ve resulted in the deaths of the fetuses, even if abortion wasn’t the intention.
Reasonable Requests
I think the plaintiffs’ goal of achieving legal clarity about exceptions for abortions when their health is at risk, regardless of whether or not they could die otherwise, is perfectly reasonable. It’s jarring to me that speakers for the state have responded by deflecting the blame onto doctors. Especially when doctors in Texas could face life in prison if the healthcare they provide in these circumstances results in the death of the fetus, even if the intent is only to save the mother’s life.
It’s fair to argue that Texas’s law has failed to prioritize the health of pregnant mothers. If life-saving healthcare can’t be provided to them because of fear of legal consequences, then mothers could die like Savita Happanavar did.
I’ve seen YouTube comments under videos on this case where people argue that these cases make up a very small percentage of abortions. Whether or not that’s true, that argument is another distraction at diverting attention away from the seriousness of this matter.
Nobody should have to plea for the government to value their right to life. I understand why people push to eliminate needless abortions, but what’s happening in Texas can’t possibly be the answer.
I’m relieved that we Ohioans defeated Issue 1. I hope that this lawsuit in Texas gives these mothers the justice they deserve without being dismissed any further.
Quis ut Deus? 