The deaths of two women in Georgia, following complications related to pregnancies, have reignited a contentious debate over the state’s stringent abortion law, which took effect two years ago. The law, passed in 2019 but enforced after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, bans most abortions after six weeks and includes limited exceptions, such as in cases of “medical emergencies” that pose a threat to the mother’s life. However, the tragic cases have placed renewed attention on the law’s effectiveness and clarity.
Two maternal deaths, reported by ProPublica this week, occurred in the initial months after Georgia’s abortion restrictions went into effect. The state’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee deemed both deaths preventable. These fatalities, which took place in Georgia, are attributed to complications from abortion medication taken by two women: Amber Thurman, 28, and Candi Miller, 41.
Amber Thurman had sought to terminate her pregnancy using medication from a clinic in North Carolina. Unfortunately, a rare complication led her to an Atlanta hospital, where she was diagnosed with sepsis. Despite her condition, medical professionals delayed performing a necessary dilation and curettage (D&C) for 20 hours. The delay was fatal.
Candi Miller, on the other hand, who suffered from multiple chronic conditions such as lupus, did not seek medical care despite experiencing complications from abortion medication. Medical professionals had advised Miller, a mother of three, against having more children due to the significant health risks.
The law, while purportedly providing for exceptions in cases of medical emergencies, has drawn significant criticism for its vague wording. Legal experts and healthcare professionals argue that this lack of clarity leaves doctors hesitant to act swiftly, out of fear of legal repercussions. According to Greer Donley, a law professor and expert on abortion laws, physicians are left grappling with the question of whether performing life-saving procedures might violate the abortion law. Doctors are aware that, if they misinterpret the law, they could face penalties ranging from license revocation to imprisonment.
In Thurman’s case, the fetus was already deceased by the time she arrived at the hospital, raising questions about why there was hesitation in performing the D&C. ProPublica’s investigation revealed that doctors met twice to decide whether to proceed with the procedure, further demonstrating the uncertainty caused by the law’s ambiguity.
The deaths of Thurman and Miller have spurred strong reactions from reproductive rights advocates. Jaylen Black, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Southeast, condemned Georgia’s restrictive law, pointing out the state’s already high maternal mortality rate and asserting that these tragedies foreshadow more potential fatalities.
“This is exactly what we feared when Roe was struck down,” said Vice President Kamala Harris, who plans to visit Georgia to discuss reproductive freedom as part of her campaign platform.
Conversely, anti-abortion advocates argue that the deaths stem from the dangers of abortion medication, not the law itself. State Sen. Ed Setzler, who sponsored the abortion ban, expressed that the law provided doctors with all the necessary tools to save Thurman’s life, emphasizing that the issue lies with improper medical care, not the legislation.
Medical experts like Dr. Susan Bane of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists maintain that the delay in Thurman’s care was not due to the law’s language but rather medical negligence. She criticized the 20-hour delay in treatment, pointing out that an infection should have been treated immediately to prevent a fatal outcome.
While supporters of the law argue that its language is clear, healthcare providers face severe consequences if they violate its terms. The law defines a “medical emergency” as a situation where an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or irreversible physical impairment. However, physicians risk losing their licenses or facing up to ten years in prison if they make the wrong judgment call.
Donley highlights how this vagueness forces doctors to weigh the risks of delaying life-saving care against potential legal consequences. In the real world, medical conditions evolve rapidly, and doctors must make decisions quickly to prevent harm. But in Georgia, the high legal stakes create hesitation, even in clear-cut cases like Thurman’s, where the fetus was already deceased.
The deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller have spotlighted the flaws in Georgia’s abortion law, sparking renewed debates about its implementation and impact on maternal health. The contrasting views between reproductive rights advocates and anti-abortion supporters underscore the deep divide on this issue. As Georgia’s abortion law remains in effect, these tragic stories may be just the beginning of a more significant struggle between legal frameworks, medical care, and the protection of maternal health.