Some people do harmful things because they are not competent enough to understand the consequences of their actions, Then there are other people who are perfectly aware of the harm they are responsible for. Who may even enjoy the power it gives them over life and death. When they engage in failure to monitor and report avoidable deaths and they attempt to cover-up with double-speak and outright lies, we know they know they have something shameful to hide from the rest of us: that they are no better than serial killers; that they should get 99 year sentences, and that this should be followed by incarceration in a whole new level of Hell designed specifically for men who legislate the torture and murder of women and girls, along with the women who enable them. Their voices repel me, their evil faces disgust me like the smell of dead fish rotting on a polluted beach.
I don’t know where else to post this latest update, but here seems worthy. I wish a news organization would pick this story up. I wish TIME would do a follow up report. This family has been through so much & they deserve JUSTICE! Mississippi should be ashamed. It seems that this gofundme update is “Regina’s” outlet & following this story for the past year is eye opening, heart breaking, filled with some silver linings, but most of all my heart hurts for this woman. Please read even if you don’t want to/can’t donate.
Everyone should read Pro Publica’s investigation into the entirely preventable death of Porsha Ngumezi. Warning- you will be infuriated by what you read. Here are some of the points that left me feeling incredibly angry about Porsha’s care.
First- she was treated in the ER for over 6 hours. During that time her nurses documented that she was passing blood clots the size of grapefruits. Porsha had a clotting disorder so from the start she should have been identified as high risk. During her time in the ER she lost 20% of her total blood supply and had 2 blood transfusions. Yet the on call OB did nothing. At a later point he ordered misoprostal, which every expert who spoke to Pro Publica said is not the standard of care for a miscarriage and cannot work fast enough to control this level of bleeding.
Second- despite the fact that Porsha was in an unstable condition and was still bleeding profusely, the OB wrote an order for her to be transferred to a regular bed in the hospital. The ER nurse objected to this move saying she was concerned that Porsha would not receive the close monitoring she required. Once Porsha was transfered out of the ER, there was no further documentation of her continued blood loss. Additionally, Porsha complained of chest pain and shortness of breath yet no diagnostic tests were ordered. She died shortly thereafter.
Third- After Porsha’s death, the OB wrote a post-mortem note that directly contradicted the already documented notes from the ER nurse(s) stating that Porsha experienced heavy bleeding and was passing clots the size of a grapefruit. In his post-mortem note the OB wrote that Porsha’s bleeding was minimal.
I am writing as a former nurse practitioner who is enraged about the manner in which Porsha was treated and her ultimate death. It seems clear to me that the OB was trying to obscure some of his treatment errors by writing in his post-mortem note that Porsha was bleeding minimally when the chart already documented the severity of Porsha’s bleeding. I recognize that the Texas abortion ban has put physicians and other health professionals in a bind since they can be criminally prosecuted and, if found guilty, sentenced to up to 99 years in prison. Nearly every day we are learning of yet another preventable death of a woman who would still be alive today if they had received an abortion. I have reached the point where I am no longer willing to say…They (doctors) had no choice. Their hands are tied. Many OB’s have demonstrated they do have a choice. It’s not an easy or desirable choice- but there are choices. Many OB’s have left states like Texas because they were no longer willing to endanger their patients. Some have retired and others have stopped practicing obstetrics. None of this is optimal. But neither is withholding standard care and allowing patients like Porsha to die painful and preventable deaths.
Thank you for the summary, I did read a little about the case. Absolutely devastating and infuriating. I also read that Porsha's husband called his mother ( a former clinician) and his mother said that Porsha needed a D&C abortion. Porsha left behind two little children...
Thank you for this explanation. So the alternative given by Ingrid Skop is to induce vaginal delivery or C Section. I am not a clinician but neither of these two options was the way to save this young woman. She was in critical condition. I agree they do have some options.
>> a D&C, not misoprostol—which wouldn’t work quickly enough <<
IANAMD, so you should feel free to double check my work, but IIUC not only does it not work quickly enough for a case like this, but misoprostol also **causes** bleeding in some cases, not stops it. I mean, sure, when the process is complete then bleeding will slow and stop, but in the short term it can increase bleeding. (Again, IIUC.) See, for example, the Mayo Clinic listing "heavy bleeding" as one possible side effect:
This sounds like a crazy dangerous idea if the problem is that someone is bleeding super heavily during a miscarriage. Maybe it makes the process shorter, which in theory allows the healing to begin sooner, but why would you want to increase bleeding, even temporarily, when heavy bleeding is the problem? Are they just not caring about the bleeding b/c they're worried more about sepsis?
I don't know, maybe the risks are low, but excess bleeding is a potential side effect, so I just don't even get the thinking at all.
It’s a very bad time to not yet quite be menopausal in Texas. At least husband had a vasectomy. So I’ve for that going for me. Downside: He won’t leave Texas. I guess I am fucking stuck trying to help others.
More from the pending-suit article: HHS finalized a HIPAA privacy regulation in APril 2024, increasing privacy protection of reproductive health information. I am sure you will be astonished to hear that Texas sued HHS in September, alleging that HHS did not have authority to issue the final rule, and the HHS rule impairs Texas' enforcement of its own abortion laws. The Trump administration has the power, and probably will, rescind the privacy rule.
The federal Title X program funds family planning clinics. The first Trump administration forbade Title X clinics to refer clients for abortions or to share premises with abortion providers. Biden reversed these policies. AFter Dobbs, 12 states, led by Ohio, sued the Biden administration, alleging that the Biden policy violates Title X's ban on using Title X funds in "programs where abortion is a method of family planning.." (That leaves open the possibility of abortion used as a method of pregnant people not dying.) A condition of participation in the Title X program is that clinics must maintain the confidentiality of their patients, even if the patients are minors. A 2022 suit, Deanda v. Becerra, requires minors in Texas to obtain parental consent before getting Title X contraceptive services. The AG of Texas sued to prevent enforcement of this privacy rule in the ten states (as well as Texas, they are Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming) that require minors to get parental consent to obtain contraceptives, unless the minors are married or legally emancipated. The incoming Trump administration could resolve the litigation by simply withdrawing the privacy rule.
The short answer is "nothing good," but Laurie Sobel et.al. provide detailed answers to "How Pending Health-Related Lawsuits Could be Impacted by the Incoming Trump Administration," kff.org (Nov. 25, 2024), https;//www.kff.org.racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/how-pending-health-related-lawsuits-could-be-impacted-by-the-incoming-trump-administration gives the details.
They say that the Trump administration is unlikely to defend the Hippocratic Medicine case mentioned above. AS a refreshing change from wobbling back and forth over the center line in the road, Trump has not expressed an opinion about this case, but Project 2025 is opposed to the FDA;s approval of mifepristone and wants the Comstock Act to be enforced.
The Biden administration sued Idaho to prevent the state ban from interfering with the EMTALA mandate of treatment. The Supreme Court dismissed this Moyle v. US case in June 2024, sending it back to the district court. Until the case is resolved, Idaho cannot enforce its ban in a way that violates EMTALA. On the other hand, Texas won a case so the Biden administration's EMTALA rule is not in effect in TExas. The Supreme Court declined to take the case. Project 2025 calls for reversal of the Biden EMTALA guidance and withdrawal of federal suits challenging the state laws of states that forbid abortion and do not have a health exception: Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
KFF.org published the results of its 2024 women's health survey, dealing with coverage of contraceptives and women's experiences and preferences. See Brittni Frederiksen, Karen Diep, and Alina Salganicoff, "Contraceptive Experiences, Coverage, and Preferences: Findings From the 2024 KFF Women's Health Survey," (Nov. 22, 2024), https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/contraceptive-experiences-coverage-and-preferences-findings-from-the-2024-kff-womens-health-survey. The survey covered women and other people responding to the female sexual/reproductive questions on the survey in the 18-49 age group. 82% of respondents said they used some kind of contraception in the previous year. 48% used more than one method, with condoms and oral contraceptives the most common. Although 85% of respondents used contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, 14% used it only for another reason like preventing sexually transmitted diseases or for health reasons. 14% changed or thought about changing their method of birth control because of something they saw/heard on social media. 20% of unmarried women had to stop using a birth control method because they couldn't afford it. About 2/3 of users with private health insurance had their cost of contraception 100% covered by insurance, but 24% paid all or some costs out of pocket because of lack of insurance coverage. Even though emergency contraception is available over the counter, 20% of respondents said they didn't know where to get emergency contraception. About a third of respondents use a permanent form of birth control: 21% are sterilized themselves, 10% of their partners have had a vasectomy. About three-quarters of respondents get contraceptive care in doctors' offices; clinics are much more common for women of color than for white women. Only about a quarter of women have heard about the Opill OTC contraceptive pill; only 4% have bought it and only 3% have used it.
Brendan Pierson, "Anti-abortion groups drop challenge to abortion pill as GOP states seek to continue case," Reuters.com (Nov. 19, 2024) https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/anti-abortion-groups-drop-ch[...]: The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other coalition members dropped their challenge to the approval of mifepristone--although three Republican AGs want to maintain the suit. The withdrawal is without prejudice--the legal term for saying they can refile the suit later. Before the Supreme Court ruling (that the Alliance and its co-plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, the Attorneys General of Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas joined the case, alleging that their Medicaid programs were harmed by having to treat complications of mifepristone usage. The FDA argued that, without the original plaintiffs, the three AGs can't pursue the suit, because they have no connection to Texas. The AGs said that it would be inefficient to change venues now. The case, wouldn't ya know it, is before Judge Kacsmaryk, who hasn't ruled yet on whether the states can pursue the case.
They won't, but you will. And if you can't, someone else will. And someone else and someone else. I will do my part and you do yours and we will cry and get thru this together.
Texas is murdering girls and women. Their bans are killing women and they don't care. Forced birth is a war crime. GD republican politicians.
Some people do harmful things because they are not competent enough to understand the consequences of their actions, Then there are other people who are perfectly aware of the harm they are responsible for. Who may even enjoy the power it gives them over life and death. When they engage in failure to monitor and report avoidable deaths and they attempt to cover-up with double-speak and outright lies, we know they know they have something shameful to hide from the rest of us: that they are no better than serial killers; that they should get 99 year sentences, and that this should be followed by incarceration in a whole new level of Hell designed specifically for men who legislate the torture and murder of women and girls, along with the women who enable them. Their voices repel me, their evil faces disgust me like the smell of dead fish rotting on a polluted beach.
I don’t know where else to post this latest update, but here seems worthy. I wish a news organization would pick this story up. I wish TIME would do a follow up report. This family has been through so much & they deserve JUSTICE! Mississippi should be ashamed. It seems that this gofundme update is “Regina’s” outlet & following this story for the past year is eye opening, heart breaking, filled with some silver linings, but most of all my heart hurts for this woman. Please read even if you don’t want to/can’t donate.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-ashley-the-time-article
Everyone should read Pro Publica’s investigation into the entirely preventable death of Porsha Ngumezi. Warning- you will be infuriated by what you read. Here are some of the points that left me feeling incredibly angry about Porsha’s care.
First- she was treated in the ER for over 6 hours. During that time her nurses documented that she was passing blood clots the size of grapefruits. Porsha had a clotting disorder so from the start she should have been identified as high risk. During her time in the ER she lost 20% of her total blood supply and had 2 blood transfusions. Yet the on call OB did nothing. At a later point he ordered misoprostal, which every expert who spoke to Pro Publica said is not the standard of care for a miscarriage and cannot work fast enough to control this level of bleeding.
Second- despite the fact that Porsha was in an unstable condition and was still bleeding profusely, the OB wrote an order for her to be transferred to a regular bed in the hospital. The ER nurse objected to this move saying she was concerned that Porsha would not receive the close monitoring she required. Once Porsha was transfered out of the ER, there was no further documentation of her continued blood loss. Additionally, Porsha complained of chest pain and shortness of breath yet no diagnostic tests were ordered. She died shortly thereafter.
Third- After Porsha’s death, the OB wrote a post-mortem note that directly contradicted the already documented notes from the ER nurse(s) stating that Porsha experienced heavy bleeding and was passing clots the size of a grapefruit. In his post-mortem note the OB wrote that Porsha’s bleeding was minimal.
I am writing as a former nurse practitioner who is enraged about the manner in which Porsha was treated and her ultimate death. It seems clear to me that the OB was trying to obscure some of his treatment errors by writing in his post-mortem note that Porsha was bleeding minimally when the chart already documented the severity of Porsha’s bleeding. I recognize that the Texas abortion ban has put physicians and other health professionals in a bind since they can be criminally prosecuted and, if found guilty, sentenced to up to 99 years in prison. Nearly every day we are learning of yet another preventable death of a woman who would still be alive today if they had received an abortion. I have reached the point where I am no longer willing to say…They (doctors) had no choice. Their hands are tied. Many OB’s have demonstrated they do have a choice. It’s not an easy or desirable choice- but there are choices. Many OB’s have left states like Texas because they were no longer willing to endanger their patients. Some have retired and others have stopped practicing obstetrics. None of this is optimal. But neither is withholding standard care and allowing patients like Porsha to die painful and preventable deaths.
Thank you for the summary, I did read a little about the case. Absolutely devastating and infuriating. I also read that Porsha's husband called his mother ( a former clinician) and his mother said that Porsha needed a D&C abortion. Porsha left behind two little children...
Thank you for this explanation. So the alternative given by Ingrid Skop is to induce vaginal delivery or C Section. I am not a clinician but neither of these two options was the way to save this young woman. She was in critical condition. I agree they do have some options.
>> a D&C, not misoprostol—which wouldn’t work quickly enough <<
IANAMD, so you should feel free to double check my work, but IIUC not only does it not work quickly enough for a case like this, but misoprostol also **causes** bleeding in some cases, not stops it. I mean, sure, when the process is complete then bleeding will slow and stop, but in the short term it can increase bleeding. (Again, IIUC.) See, for example, the Mayo Clinic listing "heavy bleeding" as one possible side effect:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/misoprostol-oral-route/description/drg-20064805
This sounds like a crazy dangerous idea if the problem is that someone is bleeding super heavily during a miscarriage. Maybe it makes the process shorter, which in theory allows the healing to begin sooner, but why would you want to increase bleeding, even temporarily, when heavy bleeding is the problem? Are they just not caring about the bleeding b/c they're worried more about sepsis?
I don't know, maybe the risks are low, but excess bleeding is a potential side effect, so I just don't even get the thinking at all.
It’s a very bad time to not yet quite be menopausal in Texas. At least husband had a vasectomy. So I’ve for that going for me. Downside: He won’t leave Texas. I guess I am fucking stuck trying to help others.
More from the pending-suit article: HHS finalized a HIPAA privacy regulation in APril 2024, increasing privacy protection of reproductive health information. I am sure you will be astonished to hear that Texas sued HHS in September, alleging that HHS did not have authority to issue the final rule, and the HHS rule impairs Texas' enforcement of its own abortion laws. The Trump administration has the power, and probably will, rescind the privacy rule.
The federal Title X program funds family planning clinics. The first Trump administration forbade Title X clinics to refer clients for abortions or to share premises with abortion providers. Biden reversed these policies. AFter Dobbs, 12 states, led by Ohio, sued the Biden administration, alleging that the Biden policy violates Title X's ban on using Title X funds in "programs where abortion is a method of family planning.." (That leaves open the possibility of abortion used as a method of pregnant people not dying.) A condition of participation in the Title X program is that clinics must maintain the confidentiality of their patients, even if the patients are minors. A 2022 suit, Deanda v. Becerra, requires minors in Texas to obtain parental consent before getting Title X contraceptive services. The AG of Texas sued to prevent enforcement of this privacy rule in the ten states (as well as Texas, they are Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming) that require minors to get parental consent to obtain contraceptives, unless the minors are married or legally emancipated. The incoming Trump administration could resolve the litigation by simply withdrawing the privacy rule.
The short answer is "nothing good," but Laurie Sobel et.al. provide detailed answers to "How Pending Health-Related Lawsuits Could be Impacted by the Incoming Trump Administration," kff.org (Nov. 25, 2024), https;//www.kff.org.racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/how-pending-health-related-lawsuits-could-be-impacted-by-the-incoming-trump-administration gives the details.
They say that the Trump administration is unlikely to defend the Hippocratic Medicine case mentioned above. AS a refreshing change from wobbling back and forth over the center line in the road, Trump has not expressed an opinion about this case, but Project 2025 is opposed to the FDA;s approval of mifepristone and wants the Comstock Act to be enforced.
The Biden administration sued Idaho to prevent the state ban from interfering with the EMTALA mandate of treatment. The Supreme Court dismissed this Moyle v. US case in June 2024, sending it back to the district court. Until the case is resolved, Idaho cannot enforce its ban in a way that violates EMTALA. On the other hand, Texas won a case so the Biden administration's EMTALA rule is not in effect in TExas. The Supreme Court declined to take the case. Project 2025 calls for reversal of the Biden EMTALA guidance and withdrawal of federal suits challenging the state laws of states that forbid abortion and do not have a health exception: Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
Fabricating data makes me think they will fabricate charges against healthcare workers.
KFF.org published the results of its 2024 women's health survey, dealing with coverage of contraceptives and women's experiences and preferences. See Brittni Frederiksen, Karen Diep, and Alina Salganicoff, "Contraceptive Experiences, Coverage, and Preferences: Findings From the 2024 KFF Women's Health Survey," (Nov. 22, 2024), https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/contraceptive-experiences-coverage-and-preferences-findings-from-the-2024-kff-womens-health-survey. The survey covered women and other people responding to the female sexual/reproductive questions on the survey in the 18-49 age group. 82% of respondents said they used some kind of contraception in the previous year. 48% used more than one method, with condoms and oral contraceptives the most common. Although 85% of respondents used contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, 14% used it only for another reason like preventing sexually transmitted diseases or for health reasons. 14% changed or thought about changing their method of birth control because of something they saw/heard on social media. 20% of unmarried women had to stop using a birth control method because they couldn't afford it. About 2/3 of users with private health insurance had their cost of contraception 100% covered by insurance, but 24% paid all or some costs out of pocket because of lack of insurance coverage. Even though emergency contraception is available over the counter, 20% of respondents said they didn't know where to get emergency contraception. About a third of respondents use a permanent form of birth control: 21% are sterilized themselves, 10% of their partners have had a vasectomy. About three-quarters of respondents get contraceptive care in doctors' offices; clinics are much more common for women of color than for white women. Only about a quarter of women have heard about the Opill OTC contraceptive pill; only 4% have bought it and only 3% have used it.
Brendan Pierson, "Anti-abortion groups drop challenge to abortion pill as GOP states seek to continue case," Reuters.com (Nov. 19, 2024) https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/anti-abortion-groups-drop-ch[...]: The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other coalition members dropped their challenge to the approval of mifepristone--although three Republican AGs want to maintain the suit. The withdrawal is without prejudice--the legal term for saying they can refile the suit later. Before the Supreme Court ruling (that the Alliance and its co-plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, the Attorneys General of Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas joined the case, alleging that their Medicaid programs were harmed by having to treat complications of mifepristone usage. The FDA argued that, without the original plaintiffs, the three AGs can't pursue the suit, because they have no connection to Texas. The AGs said that it would be inefficient to change venues now. The case, wouldn't ya know it, is before Judge Kacsmaryk, who hasn't ruled yet on whether the states can pursue the case.
They won't, but you will. And if you can't, someone else will. And someone else and someone else. I will do my part and you do yours and we will cry and get thru this together.
These decisions make me hurt mentally and physically. They don’t even care about women when we die.
As Jessica always says "The cruelty IS the point!"