�鶹Ů��

Josseli Barnica grieved the news as she lay in a Houston hospital bed on Sept. 3, 2021: The sibling she’d dreamt of giving her daughter would not survive this pregnancy. The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica. (Jaramillo and Surana, 10/30)

Lawyers for Providence and the state Attorney General filed an agreement for the Eureka hospital to follow while a lawsuit surrounding emergency abortions moves forward. The stipulation was filed three days before Providence St. Joseph becomes the only hospital with a birthing center in Humboldt County. State Attorney General Rob Bonta filed both a complaint and a preliminary injunction last month, with the latter seeking a court order guaranteeing patients can receive emergency abortions at the hospital. This stipulation, which has yet to be signed by a judge, marks more specifics on when a physician can provide abortion service. (Alexander, 10/29)

A federal appeals panel expressed skepticism Tuesday during oral arguments in a case challenging West Virginia’s abortion laws, arguing they effectively limited access to a commonly used medication abortion drug. (Raman, 10/29)

Two data points in the aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling paint a picture of that decision’s impact on mental health. First: Early data shows that states that enacted abortion bans after Roe v. Wade was overturned have seen higher rates of self-reported mental health concerns, particularly among the less wealthy. Second: Lawmakers in those states are increasingly loath to include mental health concerns or psychological conditions in the list of reasons to justify a legal, emergency abortion. (Raman, 10/29)

These days, half of what was the first nonprofit clinic in the nation to house a birthing center and provide abortions is empty. The clinic is CHOICES – Memphis Center for Reproductive Health and it opened in 1974, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling. But now its abortion patient clinical rooms and recovery area are used for storage. The call center room is going unused. Many staff have been let go, and others have had to navigate a new career path. (Raman, 10/29)

Seeking an abortion has always presented unique challenges for women in the military. For decades, a measure known as the Hyde amendment has banned federal funding for most abortions, and only allows military doctors to perform abortions in the case of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at stake. But more than two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, striking down the constitutional right to abortion, the obstacles for members of the military have only gotten harder. Some 40% of women in the military now serve in states with abortion bans or expanded abortion restrictions. (Walsh, 10/30)

As many as 180 Missourians each month received abortion pills from out-of-state providers between 2023 and 2024, according to a recent report from the Society of Family Planning. According to the latest #WeCount report from the organization, from April to June of this year, there were an average of 167 telehealth-assisted abortions provided to Missourians from clinicians in California, Massachusetts and other states with laws that protect them from legal action. (Fentem, 10/30)

Dozens of maternal health organizations and advocates are urging the California surgeon general to suspend the rollout of a plan aimed at reducing maternal mortality, saying that the recently announced initiative won’t effectively address the crisis and “risks exacerbating existing inequities.” In a letter shared with The Times, representatives of organizations ... faulted the plan for “placing undue burden on individuals” and failing to “explicitly name and address racism as a root cause of maternal health inequities.” (Alpert Reyes, 10/29)

That put them in a vulnerable category of middle-class families: those who earn too much for Medicaid but can’t afford or access insurance plans that sufficiently cover costly births. That group has been left behind by the major health care reforms of the last few years. Expansions to Medicaid for new parents that many states have enacted since 2022 don’t apply to them. The No Surprises Act, which took effect the same year, hasn’t entirely prevented surprise bills. And the Affordable Care Act still allows for high out-of-pocket costs. (Bendix, 10/30)