The deaths of two women in Georgia have reignited discussions about the state’s abortion restrictions that took effect two years ago. These cases highlight concerns about a provision in the law that aims to protect mothers in life-threatening situations.
Georgia’s abortion law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks, was enacted in 2019 but only took effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The law includes narrow exceptions, such as in cases of a “medical emergency” that threatens the mother’s life.
Recent reporting by ProPublica revealed that both women died in the months following the law’s implementation. The state’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee classified their deaths as preventable, but it has only reviewed cases up to the fall of 2022.
One victim, 28-year-old Amber Thurman, sought to end her pregnancy using medication from a clinic in North Carolina. When she faced a rare complication and went to an Atlanta hospital, doctors waited 20 hours to perform a dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure to address a life-threatening infection.
The second victim, 41-year-old Candi Miller, had several chronic health issues, including lupus. She experienced complications from the abortion medication but did not seek medical help, despite being advised against having another baby.
These tragic cases have drawn sharp criticism from reproductive rights advocates. Jaylen Black, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Southeast, stated, “These women did nothing wrong except live in a state where access to critical reproductive healthcare is unjustly restricted.”
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris announced a trip to Georgia to discuss reproductive freedom, emphasizing its importance in her campaign. Her visit follows remarks by GOP vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, who celebrated the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade during a recent visit to the state.
Harris commented, “This is exactly what we feared when Roe was struck down.”
In contrast, anti-abortion advocates argue that the deaths do not reflect a failure of the state’s law, but rather the risks associated with abortion medication. State Senator Ed Setzler, who sponsored the law, claimed that the doctors had the necessary tools to save Thurman’s life.
Complications from medication abortions are generally rare. A spokesman for Governor Brian Kemp defended the law, asserting it expands support for mothers and includes clear exceptions for medical emergencies.
However, some critics question the application of the law. Greer Donley, a law professor and abortion expert, noted that the vague language in the law may lead doctors to delay treatment until a patient is in a more critical condition.
Georgia’s law defines a medical emergency as a situation where an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or significant physical harm. Physicians who violate the law face severe penalties, including the loss of their medical license and possible imprisonment.
Donley expressed concern that the law’s ambiguity can lead to dangerous situations for patients like Thurman, whose case could have been treated more decisively. She stressed the importance of understanding how the law impacts medical decisions, especially in urgent situations.
Dr. Susan Bane, a pro-life obstetrician, agreed that the doctors involved in Thurman’s case acted negligently by delaying the necessary treatment. She criticized the narrative that blames the law itself, attributing the confusion to a lack of clear communication from professional organizations.
The debate over the law’s clarity continues. State Representative Michelle Au, who is also an anesthesiologist, argued that the law fails to align with real-world medical practices. She noted that assessing the severity of a situation is often retrospective, complicating decisions made under pressure.
Au warned that Thurman and Miller may represent the beginning of a troubling trend, with more patients potentially suffering due to the restrictive law.
