Early in her pregnancy, Jaci Statton was in her kitchen when she felt like she was going to pass out and saw that her jeans had become soaked with blood. Doctors informed her that the pregnancy was not viable and that an abortion needed to be performed soon to prevent threats to her life. However, living in Oklahoma, a state that prohibits most abortions, she faced challenges finding a hospital that would provide the procedure. Despite her urgent need, three hospitals declined to assist her. The third hospital even suggested that she wait in the parking lot until her condition worsened. As a result of this experience, Statton filed a legal complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, stating that the Oklahoma Children’s Hospital violated a federal law that mandates hospitals with emergency departments to provide abortions in urgent situations, regardless of state abortion restrictions.
This case is one of several legal challenges filed on Tuesday, involving patients and doctors from Idaho, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. These individuals argue that the abortion bans in their respective states prevent women with serious pregnancy complications from accessing necessary abortions when the medical need is evident. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed these cases, aiming to gain legal clarity that exempts patients in such situations from state abortion bans. Instead of seeking to overturn the bans, the groups want to ensure that patients in these circumstances receive the care they need.
Abortion rights advocacy groups are focusing on cases involving patients with desired pregnancies that develop severe complications or abnormalities due to the increasing number of states enacting laws that outlaw most abortions. They believe that the vague language in these laws and doctors’ fear of prosecution have led to the denial of care, resulting in detrimental consequences for patients’ health and future fertility.
Anti-abortion groups argue that state abortion bans already include exceptions for life-threatening emergencies and assert that abortion rights advocates are attempting to confuse the issue. Dr. Ingrid Skop, a vice president and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, explained that while she never performed elective abortions, there have been instances where separating a mother from her unborn child became necessary to save her life in an emergency.
Various legal strategies are being pursued to address these concerns. One strategy seeks clarification about state abortion restrictions, allowing doctors to terminate pregnancies for patients with medical emergencies or severe fetal anomalies. Another strategy involves filing complaints with the federal government against hospitals that deny abortions to patients in emergency situations due to state abortion bans. Recently, the federal government informed two hospitals in Missouri and Kansas that they had violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) by denying an abortion to a woman whose water broke 17 weeks into her pregnancy. Statton’s complaint urges the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to investigate Oklahoma Children’s Hospital and find it in violation of the EMTALA, potentially resulting in fines and exclusion from Medicare funding.
OU Health, which includes Children’s Hospital, has stated that its healthcare complies with state and federal laws and regulatory compliance standards. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to comment on whether they are investigating the Oklahoma claim but affirmed their commitment to protecting people’s access to necessary healthcare, including abortion care.
The Center for Reproductive Rights held a news conference on Tuesday, emphasizing that the limited exceptions in state abortion bans are confusing and force physicians to choose between criminal prosecution and their patients’ well-being. Nancy Northup, the president of the group, expressed concerns about the laws’ impact on physicians.
A case in Texas, filed earlier this year, seeks exemption from the state’s abortion ban for patients with complicated pregnancies. Although the temporary exemption was initially granted, it was blocked on appeal, and the case is scheduled for trial next year.
The lawsuits filed against Tennessee and Idaho on Tuesday aim to clarify which situations qualify as medical emergencies for abortions and also expand the exemptions to include pregnancies with lethal fetal anomalies.
Statton’s case in Oklahoma highlights the obstacles she faced while attempting to receive a necessary abortion. After being turned away by two hospitals, she ultimately had to travel 180 miles to a clinic in Kansas to obtain the procedure. She hopes that by sharing her story, other women in similar situations will understand that they are not alone and have the support they need.
