Opinion | Debating emergency abortions can kill women

It’s easy to say that women’s bodies shouldn’t be political. I’ve said it plenty of times before, and chances are I’ll say it again. However, at the end of the day, people require healthcare, which costs money and hence politics is needed. Whether the government should be regulating when a woman gets to make a medical decision is a fine line between whether it’s a decision for politicians or the actual people involved. Legislation like House Bill No. 790 attempts to find the balance between the two. The bill is an imperative step to ensure women’s access to emergency abortions, but it serves as a horrifying gesture that life-threatening decisions can be subject to a political debate. 

House Bill No. 790, introduced by Democratic Rep. Melissa Shusterman of Chester County, mandates that hospitals provide a necessary abortion if someone is having an emergency medical condition. An emergency medical condition can include, but is not limited to, an ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy complications or placental abnormalities. 

As abortion rights are under attack, bills like these are unfortunately incredibly necessary. In a situation where a mother’s life is on the line, ensuring they can have access is crucial. However, the fact that bills like this even have to exist proves how far both the healthcare system and the debate surrounding abortion have gone. 

When someone’s life is on the line, doctors shouldn’t need to look at a piece of legislation to perform a procedure. With other ailments, medical decisions are simply between the practitioner and the individual, with little consultation between them. If someone came in with a heart attack, it’s a simple and quick decision to save their life. The fact that they now have to question whether a medical procedure they’re about to perform is legal is detrimental to women’s lives. 

This bill will ensure that, in case a woman’s life is on the line, the medical procedure can be done. It doesn’t provide for abortions outside of a particular context, but instead just provides an answer for the age-old dilemma where doctors pick between the woman or the baby, giving a legal right to save the woman. 

Unclear legislation on abortion rights can have disastrous effects on doctors, as the specifics of when abortion is allowed often vary from state to state, and the wording is murky. Therefore, if doctors aren’t sure whether they can perform an abortion, they might hesitate. In an emergency decision, this hesitation can kill someone. House Bill No. 790 certainly helps but doesn’t reverse a pre-existing practice. 

In the 13 states that have abortion bans, doctors face serious criminal charges for performing one when it’s not a medical emergency. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, clinics that receive Medicare funding are required to provide emergency treatments to patients with life-threatening issues. However, as some pregnancy complications can quickly escalate, it leaves doctors unsure when they should act. 

Across the country, nearly one in five OBGYNs reported they’ve felt constraints on their ability to treat a miscarriage because of the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Additionally, in states with almost total bans, six out of 10 clinics reported feeling a decrease in their agency for decision-making when it comes to deciding whether a woman needs an abortion. Nationally, only 68% of OBGYNs completely understand when an abortion is allowed in their state. 

In states that have total bans, this indecision can turn deadly for patients. In Texas, which bans all abortions with the exception of a complete medical emergency, sepsis rose 50% for women who lost their pregnancy in the second trimester. This occurred because doctors hesitated to perform an abortion, increasing the women’s risk of infection. If a fetus still has a heartbeat, doctors have to assess whether a woman’s medical emergency is dire enough to perform the abortion, leaving a small time window for when pregnancy complications become serious enough to treat and increasing risks for diseases like sepsis. 

House Bill No. 790 allows for emergency abortions in case Pennsylvania were to enact an extreme abortion ban, but emergency abortions shouldn’t have to be allowed. They should be, without question, guaranteed. It’s shameful that having the right to your body, and to have a doctor make a life-or-death decision, is even debated. Emergency abortions shouldn’t have to be a matter of legislation, but the unfortunate reality is that it is. Reproductive rights and autonomy should be between the patient and the doctor, not a political game.

We shouldn’t have to ask for the right to an emergency abortion. It’s regrettable we’re at a place where it’s about to be debated on the House floor. 

Emma Hannan is the Digital Editor for the Pitt News who likes to talk about politics and human rights. To reach out with comments or article ideas, you can reach her at emh249@pitt.edu.