International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

cosmicaug 20th March 2023 07:55 AM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-hospital-bonner-general-stops-labor-delivery-services-citing-political-climate-doctor-shortages/

Quote:

An Idaho hospital will stop labor and delivery services, citing doctor shortages and the "political climate," the hospital announced Friday.

"Highly respected, talented physicians are leaving. Recruiting replacements will be extraordinarily difficult," Bonner General Health, located in the city of Sandpoint, said in a news release.

Pregnant women who utilized Bonner General, a 25-bed hospital, will now have to drive to hospitals or birthing centers in Coeur d'Alene or Spokane to give birth.

In 2022, doctors delivered 265 babies at Bonner General and admitted less than 10 pediatric patients, the hospital said.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, abortion bans have added another challenge to rural hospitals that have struggled to keep their doors open and their facilities fully staffed and running.
It sounds from the article like this is a factor of many (but still a factor).

Stacyhs 20th March 2023 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 14032914)

Ye shall reap what ye sow. Karma. Be careful what you wish for... etc. etc. etc.

Reformed Offlian 20th March 2023 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 14029698)
Sandwiches are not going to make themselves!

The Curse of Ham...Sandwiches.

smartcooky 20th March 2023 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 14032914)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14033179)
Ye shall reap what ye sow. Karma. Be careful what you wish for... etc. etc. etc.


Indeed. I promise you, if I was a pediatric doctor in an anti-abortion state, having to decide between saving a pregnant woman's life or facing prosecution for performing an abortion and then having my licence to practice revoked, is not a decision I ever want to take.

I would be out of that State just as soon as I can get a position at a hospital in a civilized State.

Lukraak_Sisser 20th March 2023 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14033179)
Ye shall reap what ye sow. Karma. Be careful what you wish for... etc. etc. etc.

Ah, but the people who pushed for this result can always fly their spouses/daughters/mistresses to a state or country with good healthcare for women.

And the people they manipulated to vote for this travesty can be told the lack of good healthcare is due to the 'evil libruls' so keep voting for the GOP, we'll make it all better 'real soon'.

Stacyhs 21st March 2023 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 14033549)
Ah, but the people who pushed for this result can always fly their spouses/daughters/mistresses to a state or country with good healthcare for women.

And the people they manipulated to vote for this travesty can be told the lack of good healthcare is due to the 'evil libruls' so keep voting for the GOP, we'll make it all better 'real soon'.

True; people can be so damn stupid.

cosmicaug 8th April 2023 06:00 PM

From https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-texas-mifepristone-ruling-flies-face-science:

Quote:

AMA: Texas mifepristone ruling flies in the face of science
Bookmark
APR 7, 2023




The following statement is attributable to:
Jack Resneck Jr., MD
President, American Medical Association

“Today’s court decision from a federal district court in Texas staying longstanding approval of mifepristone flies in the face of science and evidence and threatens to upend access to a safe and effective drug that has been used by millions of people for more than 20 years. The court’s disregard for well-established scientific facts in favor of speculative allegations and ideological assertions will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation. By rejecting medical facts, the court has intruded into the exam room and has intervened in decisions that belong to patients and physicians. The court’s rebuff of scientific facts also undermines informed decisions, erodes trust in institutions, exacerbates social divides, and places individual and collective health at risk.

“Additionally, this decision introduces the extraordinary, unprecedented danger of courts upending longstanding drug regulatory decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Doing so goes against the established scientific process that leads to those decisions and puts other drugs at risk of being subject to similar efforts. Substituting the opinions of individual judges and courts in place of extensive, evidence-based, scientific review of efficacy and safety through well-established FDA processes is reckless and dangerous. We’ve also witnessed efforts by state legislatures to limit access to this medication–we believe that FDA regulations should supersede state law to avoid a patchwork of state-level, non-evidence-based restrictions that interfere with the appropriate use of a safe and effective drug and frustrate access to medically necessary care.

“Mifepristone has been studied extensively for over two decades and has been proven to be safe time and time again. In addition to its use for voluntary termination of pregnancy, mifepristone is regularly used, in combination with misoprostol, as one of the most effective regimens for medication management of miscarriage–a use this decision ends for countless patients already struggling with the loss of a pregnancy. Prohibiting access to mifepristone would force patients to consider using a higher dosage of misoprostol on its own, which is a less effective treatment.

“There is no evidence that people are harmed by having access to this safe and effective medication. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence that the denial of needed abortion care without justification carries a psychological, physical, and economic toll. For people who do not have access to procedural abortion or adequate medical facilities, there may be no other options to obtain critically needed care. Current data show an association between restricted access to safe and legal abortion and higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, with already vulnerable populations experiencing the greatest burden. Reduced access to mifepristone will almost certainly exacerbate the maternal mortality crisis in places that do not have access to this medication.

“We will continue to support access to evidence-based health care, including abortion medication, and oppose intrusions that undermine our patients’ health.”


I assume quoting the entire, properly attributed press release is fine.


To complicate things a little bit more, we simultaneouhttps://www.kff.org/policy-watch/q-a-implications-of-two-conflicting-federal-court-rulings-on-the-availability-of-medication-abortion-and-the-fdas-authority-to-regulate-drugs/sly have another conflicting federal ruling. From https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/q-a-implications-of-two-conflicting-federal-court-rulings-on-the-availability-of-medication-abortion-and-the-fdas-authority-to-regulate-drugs/:
Quote:

On April 7, 2023, two conflicting rulings on the provision of mifepristone, the drug used for medication abortion, were issued by two separate federal court judges, one in Texas and one in Washington State. Judge Mathew Kacsmaryk, the judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division, issued a preliminary injunction in the case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, blocking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone dating back to 2000. The judge has stayed his decision for seven days to give the FDA time to appeal, but the ruling effectively impacts the entire nation and would effectively revoke the FDA approval granted to mifepristone in 2000.

On the same afternoon, Judge Thomas O. Rice from the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Washington ruled in a case that was filed by the Oregon and Washington Attorneys General joined by 16 other Attorneys General. The AGs are challenging the FDA’s decision to impose restrictions on prescribing and dispensing mifepristone through the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation System (REMS), claiming the restrictions on the dispensing of the drug imposed by the FDA are unnecessary and limit its availability. This ruling orders the FDA to maintain the current availability of mifepristone in the 17 states and DC, the plaintiffs in this case.

As a result, the FDA has conflicting orders: to suspend its approval mifepristone on one hand and not to alter its approval effective January 2023, on the other. Because these two federal court rulings conflict, the Supreme Court could be called upon to resolve this conflict and decide the merits of both cases. This Q&A summarizes some of the key issues related to these rulings.

bruto 8th April 2023 09:53 PM

So shall we start the countdown before some nutjob plaintiff gets some nutjob judge to ban something else, like the measles vaccine?

slyjoe 10th April 2023 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 14047064)
So shall we start the countdown before some nutjob plaintiff gets some nutjob judge to ban something else, like the measles vaccine?

Mifiprestone deaths per 100,000: 0.35
Viagra deaths per 100,000: 6
Pregnancy deaths per 100,000: 23.8
Measle vaccine deaths per 100,000: In the noise

ETA: So, to answer the question, some nutjob will go after measles. They seem to be starting with the safest drugs and working their way up.

catsmate 10th April 2023 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 14047656)
Mifiprestone deaths per 100,000: 0.35
Viagra deaths per 100,000: 6
Pregnancy deaths per 100,000: 23.8
Measle vaccine deaths per 100,000: In the noise

ETA: So, to answer the question, some nutjob will go after measles. They seem to be starting with the safest drugs and working their way up.

the surgical abortion death rate is about 0.41 per 100,000.

BTW your pregnancy death rates don't seem to be correct for the USAia. The most recent overall value (2021) is 32.8 per 100,000 (or approximately eighty times higher than the rate for safe and legal abortions). Also in states that restrict access to safe and legal abortion the death rate is far higher, 47.5 per 100,000.

So much for the anti-abortion lies about saving lives.
:rolleyes:

Tero 11th April 2023 04:44 AM

The antiabortionists I run into...I rately respond to them...have no answer when I tell them the truth: as of now, the US has no shortage of babies.

Upchurch 11th April 2023 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tero (Post 14048237)
The antiabortionists I run into...I rately respond to them...have no answer when I tell them the truth: as of now, the US has no shortage of babies.

If they think there is, tell ‘em to go have their own babies and keep their noses out of other people’s business.

catsmate 11th April 2023 08:11 AM

It's a little OT, but the USAian maternal mortality rate (at ~33/100k) is six times that of Ireland, more than five times the EU average and triple the 'Most Developed' average. Plenty of scope for work there....
And it's getting worse.

ponderingturtle 11th April 2023 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 14048383)
It's a little OT, but the USAian maternal mortality rate (at ~33/100k) is six times that of Ireland, more than five times the EU average and triple the 'Most Developed' average. Plenty of scope for work there....
And it's getting worse.

Depends on how one views the value of some worthless slut.

Tero 11th April 2023 02:03 PM

Nebraska likely to end up with 12 week ban. There are one or two people signaling no support for the roughly 6 weeks.
https://www.1011now.com/2023/04/11/d...diac-activity/

slyjoe 11th April 2023 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 14047862)
the surgical abortion death rate is about 0.41 per 100,000.

BTW your pregnancy death rates don't seem to be correct for the USAia. The most recent overall value (2021) is 32.8 per 100,000 (or approximately eighty times higher than the rate for safe and legal abortions). Also in states that restrict access to safe and legal abortion the death rate is far higher, 47.5 per 100,000.

Sorry - I could blame dyslexia but I don't have it. The 23.8 figure was from 2020.

Quote:


So much for the anti-abortion lies about saving lives.
:rolleyes:
No kidding. This is ridiculous. I may cut the data out and laminate cards to remember and/or hand out. :(

catsmate 12th April 2023 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 14048758)
Sorry - I could blame dyslexia but I don't have it. The 23.8 figure was from 2020.

Don't worry, it happens to us all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 14048758)
No kidding. This is ridiculous. I may cut the data out and laminate cards to remember and/or hand out. :(

Personally I have an excellent memory for numbers, I can recite pi to a hundred decimals and about fifty other constants to fifteen figures.
Names are a different matter....

TragicMonkey 12th April 2023 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 14049277)
Personally I have an excellent memory for numbers, I can recite pi to a hundred decimals

Knowing the numbers of pi is one thing, knowing the order they go in is another.

Tero 13th April 2023 12:29 PM

The Nebraska unicameral is a bit of a messy thing, resembling Mitch McConnel in the senate.

The next round is likely to restrict the "heart beat" part.
Quote:

Clearing the first round of debate doesn’t guarantee LB 626 will pass. Several co-sponsors have hinted their support could waver in future rounds. Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston introduced an amendment that has yet to see debate that would ease the bill’s restriction to a 12-week ban, while Sen. Teresa Ibach of Sumner said that she is taking in opinions from both sides of the debate, including from physicians who oppose the bill.

Both Riepe and Ibach voted “yes” on LB 626 Wednesday. But if either does not support cloture in future rounds, there may not be enough votes to keep it alive.
https://omaha.com/news/state-and-reg...acc173004.html

Tero 14th April 2023 05:15 AM

The more expensive CVS testing for birth defects is done at 10-12 weeks. Those states with bans at 12 or 15 weeks are forcing the women, often, to go out of state for the test.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...atal-diagnosis

They will likely get the abortion out of state as well. Might require a couple of days.

The poor women will all end up trying to cause miscarriage and will be then prosecuted.

tyr_13 14th April 2023 10:19 AM

A new Texas bill would make it illegal to provide abortion information online (Wired).

It also uses a new favorite of the GOP; paying litigious brown shirts to do the suing for the state with cash bounties.

Stacyhs 14th April 2023 12:12 PM

The right-wing GOP wants a return to the 1950's and they're certainly succeeding.

TragicMonkey 14th April 2023 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14050551)
The right-wing GOP wants a return to the 1950's and they're certainly succeeding.

Only as a rest stop on their way to the 1850s.

Hercules56 14th April 2023 01:37 PM

Abortion pill banned.

Florida banning abortion after week 6.

Looks like a total abortion ban is their agenda, no denying it. But they might try.

Stacyhs 14th April 2023 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 14050682)
Abortion pill banned.

Florida banning abortion after week 6.

Looks like a total abortion ban is their agenda, no denying it. But they might try.

That's certainly what they'd like to do. My BFF and her husband are thinking of buying a home in FL for the winters (they live in New England). I told her that my husband and I would NOT be using the guest room. I won't set a foot there.

Hercules56 14th April 2023 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14050687)
That's certainly what they'd like to do. My BFF and her husband are thinking of buying a home in FL for the winters (they live in New England). I told her that my husband and I would NOT be using the guest room. I won't set a foot there.

We want to go back to Disney world but after this I am seriously reconsidering ever going back to that state. If the people think this is okay I don't want them getting any tax revenue from me.

smartcooky 14th April 2023 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 14050448)
A new Texas bill would make it illegal to provide abortion information online (Wired).

It also uses a new favorite of the GOP; paying litigious brown shirts to do the suing for the state with cash bounties.

This would only apply in Texas... they would not be able to stop other states or other countries having online abortion information. Of course, this is just another step towards cutting off information sources for women seeking abortions. The next step will be to make it illegal for individuals to even search or seek of abortion information.

I'd love to hear now from a certain member with whom I had a debate in this thread, who thought women wanting abortion information should feel free to seek it online - he actually encouraged them to do so without bothering to doing anything to conceal their online identity. He seems to have been very quiet for that last five months.

Stacyhs 14th April 2023 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 14050694)
We want to go back to Disney world but after this I am seriously reconsidering ever going back to that state. If the people think this is okay I don't want them getting any tax revenue from me.

Disneyland.

Hercules56 14th April 2023 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14050861)
Disneyland.

No EPCOT. 😥

Stacyhs 14th April 2023 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 14050863)
No EPCOT. 😥

You'll survive.

ZiprHead 14th April 2023 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14050861)
Disneyland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 14050863)
No EPCOT. 😥

Cedar Point. Best coaster park in the country.

Aridas 14th April 2023 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 14050707)
This would only apply in Texas... they would not be able to stop other states or other countries having online abortion information.

Even if it "only applied in Texas," given the internet, it's pretty much a given that the effects would extend far beyond Texas. It's not like most websites really have the capability to limit who can see them in the first place, after all, and it's waaay easier to just remove stuff pre-emptively or just not put it up than face the expense, vilification, death threats, and politicization that are far too likely to result from being taken to court, even frivolously. Things would get even worse, of course, if using VPNs became punishable in the US, like they are in a number of pointedly oppressive countries... and that's unfortunately a possibility that may be on its way. The RESTRICT Act leaves some ambiguity that means that good faith rulings might be sensible, for example, but I think we all know that certain elements of the GOP simply aren't going to act in good faith and the mere potential is pretty much guaranteed to cause real harm.

cosmicaug 15th April 2023 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tero (Post 14048628)
Nebraska likely to end up with 12 week ban. There are one or two people signaling no support for the roughly 6 weeks.
https://www.1011now.com/2023/04/11/d...diac-activity/

And Florida's 6 week one was just signed by DeSantis (not like there was ever any doubt that he would sign it).

cosmicaug 15th April 2023 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 14047013)
From https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-texas-mifepristone-ruling-flies-face-science:
Quote:

AMA: Texas mifepristone ruling flies in the face of science
Bookmark
APR 7, 2023




The following statement is attributable to:
Jack Resneck Jr., MD
President, American Medical Association

“Today’s court decision from a federal district court in Texas staying longstanding approval of mifepristone flies in the face of science and evidence and threatens to upend access to a safe and effective drug that has been used by millions of people for more than 20 years. The court’s disregard for well-established scientific facts in favor of speculative allegations and ideological assertions will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation. By rejecting medical facts, the court has intruded into the exam room and has intervened in decisions that belong to patients and physicians. The court’s rebuff of scientific facts also undermines informed decisions, erodes trust in institutions, exacerbates social divides, and places individual and collective health at risk.

“Additionally, this decision introduces the extraordinary, unprecedented danger of courts upending longstanding drug regulatory decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Doing so goes against the established scientific process that leads to those decisions and puts other drugs at risk of being subject to similar efforts. Substituting the opinions of individual judges and courts in place of extensive, evidence-based, scientific review of efficacy and safety through well-established FDA processes is reckless and dangerous. We’ve also witnessed efforts by state legislatures to limit access to this medication–we believe that FDA regulations should supersede state law to avoid a patchwork of state-level, non-evidence-based restrictions that interfere with the appropriate use of a safe and effective drug and frustrate access to medically necessary care.

“Mifepristone has been studied extensively for over two decades and has been proven to be safe time and time again. In addition to its use for voluntary termination of pregnancy, mifepristone is regularly used, in combination with misoprostol, as one of the most effective regimens for medication management of miscarriage–a use this decision ends for countless patients already struggling with the loss of a pregnancy. Prohibiting access to mifepristone would force patients to consider using a higher dosage of misoprostol on its own, which is a less effective treatment.

“There is no evidence that people are harmed by having access to this safe and effective medication. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence that the denial of needed abortion care without justification carries a psychological, physical, and economic toll. For people who do not have access to procedural abortion or adequate medical facilities, there may be no other options to obtain critically needed care. Current data show an association between restricted access to safe and legal abortion and higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, with already vulnerable populations experiencing the greatest burden. Reduced access to mifepristone will almost certainly exacerbate the maternal mortality crisis in places that do not have access to this medication.

“We will continue to support access to evidence-based health care, including abortion medication, and oppose intrusions that undermine our patients’ health.”

And from https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...yk-law-review/, this is perfectly normal (emphasis mine):
Quote:

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

The Obama administration, the draft article argued, had discounted religious physicians who “cannot use their scalpels to make female what God created male” and “cannot use their pens to prescribe or dispense abortifacient drugs designed to kill unborn children.”

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.

What Kacsmaryk did not say in the email was that he had already been interviewed for a judgeship by his state’s two senators and was awaiting an interview at the White House.

As part of that process, he was required to list all of his published work on a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, including “books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited.”

The article, titled “The Jurisprudence of the Body,” was published in September 2017 by the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a right-leaning journal that Kacsmaryk had led as a law student at the University of Texas. But Kacsmaryk’s role in the article was not disclosed, nor did he list the article on the paperwork he submitted to the Senate in advance of confirmation hearings in which Kacsmaryk’s past statements on LGBT issues became a point of contention.

Now, six years later, as Kacsmaryk sits as a judge in Amarillo, Tex., his strong ideological views have grabbed the country’s attention after his ruling this month that sought to block government approval of a key drug used in more than half of all abortions in the country — an opinion that invoked antiabortion-movement rhetoric and which some medical experts have said relied on debunked claims that exaggerate potential harms of the drug.

Kacsmaryk did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for First Liberty, Hiram Sasser, said that Kacsmaryk’s name had been a “placeholder” on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a “substantive contribution.” Aaron Reitz, who was the journal’s editor in chief at the time and is now a deputy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said Kacsmaryk had been “our chief point of contact during much of the editing” and “was the placeholder until final authors were named by First Liberty.”
I am definitely aware of how in academia, authorship can get weird (including adding authors to papers who might have minimal or null contributions), but this seems kind of... stinky?

Reformed Offlian 15th April 2023 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14050866)
You'll survive.

Let's be optimistic: if the Republicans are as successful with dismantling consumer safety as they are dismantling abortion access, soon they'll be able to re-open Action Park. Whee!

Hercules56 15th April 2023 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14050866)
You'll survive.

I'd survive better if Congress passed a law protecting abortion on demand to at least the 16th week.

Orphia Nay 15th April 2023 09:29 PM

Quote:

Republicans have suffered painful losses in recent weeks and months across Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada and even deep-red Kansas in elections that focused, at least in part, on abortion. Last week in Wisconsin, an anti-abortion candidate for the state Supreme Court was trounced by 11 points in a state President Joe Biden carried by less than 1 point.

“Any conversation about banning abortion or limiting it nationwide is an electoral disaster for the Republicans,” said New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican who describes himself as “pro-choice” but also signed a law banning abortions in the state after 24 weeks.

“The Republican Party has an inability to move off this issue in a way that doesn’t scare the heck out the average voter, the independent voter, the younger generation of voters,” Sununu continued. “These guys keep pushing themselves deeper and deeper into an ultra-right base that really does not define the bulk of the Republican Party.”

Privately, at least, strategists involved with Republican presidential campaigns concede that the GOP is on the wrong side of the debate as it currently stands. While popular with Republican primary voters, public polling consistently shows that the broader collection of voters who decide general elections believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
https://apnews.com/article/1280a04a2...e8300cf7be4908

Signs of hope.

That's if these awful bills are made known. DeSantis wasn't promoting the recent Florida "success" so the average voter might not be aware of the loss of rights.

Aridas 16th April 2023 03:22 AM

To poke at a tangent for a moment... even in the US where life-threatening abortions are clearly legal, things can be a bit awful.

In a liberal US state, my life-saving abortion cost $55,000

Ectopic pregnancy, in this case. To poke at some of the costs involved listed in the article -

Quote:

For a straightforward abortion that takes place before 14 weeks of gestation, a physician in Ontario can bill C$112.40 (US$83). In California, prices start at $250 for patients insured by Medicaid.

Dr Alisha Olsthoorn, an OB-GYN at Toronto’s Mount Sinai hospital, said that she will typically bill C$307 (about US$225) for a laparoscopic salpingectomy – the same surgery that cost me $5,900 in Berkeley.

“If it’s the middle of the night, I’d bill more,” said Olsthoorn, explaining that she would add a 75% surcharge for an after-hours surgery.

At Scarborough Health Network, also in Toronto, hospital costs for an ectopic pregnancy needing a surgical abortion average C$5,608.00 and include an overnight stay (which was not among the amenities provided in my $49k hospital bill).

And even those costs are covered by the government – not the patient.

Tero 19th April 2023 04:52 AM

If you work for Hobby Lobby, I bet they will not pay for any abortion, ectopic or not.

Silly Green Monkey 20th April 2023 03:46 AM

My mother still insists the surgery for her ectopic pregnancy was not an abortion, but I still say that abortion is why my sister and I exist. Had my mother been forced to die with her first pregnancy when it failed to properly implant, that refusal to 'kill a baby' would have ended one life and prevented two more.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.