Since January, Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Boise, Idaho, has had at least four of her patients transported to emergency flights and airlifted out of state as they face serious pregnancy complications.
One was a woman whose water broke around the 20th week of pregnancy, putting her at risk of infection. In these types of emergencies, terminating the patient’s pregnancy may be part of the standard of care. But doctors at the hospital where Seyb works say they have been forced to transfer patients experiencing these complications out of state to comply with the state’s abortion ban.
“This has become the new normal, which is sad,” he said.
Idaho prohibits all abortions, with criminal penalties of up to five years in prison for those performing or assisting. The law includes limited exceptions for rape, incest, and saving a mother’s life, but there are no exceptions for protecting her health.
After oral arguments on Wednesday, the Supreme Court is now considering whether Idaho’s abortion ban violates a federal law which requires hospitals to provide emergency care to patients in crisis. So far, the justices appear divided on this issue, with some of the more conservative justices appearing to lean toward the state of Idaho, which argued that federal law should not override its own health care laws.
St. Luke’s Health System, which includes the hospital where Seyb works, filed suit short friend in this case, noting that an abortion may be critical to protecting a patient from non-fatal harm such as organ loss, permanent disability, severe pain, or loss of fertility. He also said the ban forces patients to endure potentially risky out-of-state transfers.
Since January 5, when the Supreme Court lifted an injunction protecting doctors providing emergency care, six pregnant St. Luke’s patients have had to be airlifted out of Idaho, according to Dr. De Lucas. Last year, the system saw just one such transfer, he said.
At a press conference after Wednesday’s arguments, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican, questioned reports of doctors transferring patients. “It’s really hard for me to conceive of a single case where a woman would have to be flown out of Idaho to have an abortion,” he said.
“Our law is very clear,” he said. “It protects doctors, it protects women, it protects unborn children, and it ensures that doctors can use a subjective standard if they believe the mother’s life is in danger.”
Out-of-state medical transfers can delay needed care and place immense financial and emotional costs on pregnant patients, who may end up far from home during some of the most difficult times of their lives. The cost of flights can exceed $10,000, and transportation may also be considered out-of-network by insurance, increasing the portion patients must pay.
One of the most common complications is when the patient’s water breaks in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, according to Souza. Last year, the hospital system recorded 54 such cases, most occurring before fetal viability.
Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that advocates for abortion rights, also filed suit short friend in the Supreme Court case. Quote a march report for which the group interviewed several physicians who practice or practice in Idaho, along with physicians residing in neighboring states who have received transferred patients.
Dr. Sarena Hayer, an Oregon physician, described receiving a patient from Idaho who was seriously ill when she arrived by plane. The patient was 18 weeks pregnant with twins when she suffered a serious pregnancy complication. The patient also had a history of kidney problems and had already received a transplant.
Doctors at the hospital in Idaho determined that one of her fetuses had died and the lab results were concerning. She told the doctors she “wanted them to do whatever was necessary, including firing,” according to the report. But she ended up being airlifted to Oregon. The next morning, she also lost the other fetus.
If the woman had started her care in Oregon, she would have been offered termination almost immediately, Hayer said.
“What other medical condition can we think of that would require a sick patient to be transported to another state for a legal reason?” Hayer told NBC News. “It really seems unfair.”
“In a way, you are torturing women because you are not providing definitive care until you can tell they are on the brink of death,” Dr. Michele Heisler, medical director of Doctors for Human Rights, said in an interview. “I think that’s the bet here.”
Doctors in Idaho also described situations in which patients with serious pregnancy complications were unable to leave the state to seek treatment.
Dr. Michael Schneider, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Boise, recalled a patient whose water broke at around 20 weeks but refused to be flown out of state, in part because she couldn’t leave her mother. family. Expenses were another concern. The woman left the hospital, he said, and returned as soon as she felt contractions. She went into labor, but her fetus did not survive.
Over her decades in medicine, Schneider has learned that pregnant women’s vulnerabilities are acute. On his first night of residency at a hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, a patient with sepsis died.
“That’s what keeps me awake — that someone will be put in danger, or that a transport will break down and there will be a significant injury to the mother,” he said. “There’s nothing worse than losing two.”
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
