Texas banned abortions - and then sepsis rates started to soar
The rate of sepsis dramatically increased among pregnant women in Texas after the state's restrictive abortion laws took effect, according to a report.
ProPublica analyzed seven years of Texas hospitals' discharge data — from 2017 through 2023 — and found that since 2021, when the southern state's initial abortion ban went into effect, the rate of sepsis surged by more than 50 percent for women hospitalized when they experienced miscarriages in the second trimester.
Sepsis is a medical emergency that occurs when a patient's body improperly reacts to an infection. It can lead to organ failure or death if not treated quickly enough.
In September 2021, the state banned most abortions after a fetal heartbeat was detected. Then, in August 2022 following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade, Texas's 'trigger law' took effect, criminalizing abortion. Doctors who perform abortions could face life in prison and fines of up to $100,000. Now, abortions are banned in all cases except if the mother's health or life is at risk — a definition that the state's supreme court has refused to clarify.
The rate of sepsis among patients experiencing second-trimester pregnancy loss remained pretty steady until the state added criminal penalties for abortion providers, the analysis shows.
In 2021, before they were introduced, 67 patients who miscarried in the second trimester were diagnosed with sepsis but after, in 2022, that figure increased to 90. That number increased again to 99 in 2023.
ProPublica believe those figures could be 'conservative.'
Treating miscarriages has also become complicated as a result of these laws. Medical professionals are constrained by either having to wait for the mother's life to be in jeopardy or having to wait for the fetus' heart to stop beating.
For example, three days after the fetal heartbeat law took effect, on September 3, 2021, Josseli Barnica went to a Houston hospital at 17 weeks pregnant to discover she was battling a deadly infection as a result of a miscarriage. But doctors were restricted in how they could treat her, since her fetus still had a heartbeat. After 40 hours in pain from the infection, Barnica delivered the fetus after there was no longer a detectable heartbeat. Three days after being treated and discharged, she died from sepsis. Medical experts who reviewed her case told ProPublica that they believed her death was 'preventable.'
Another patient cited in the study, Nevaeh Crain, died after doctor's waited for her fetus' heart to stop beating as her organs failed. Before rushing the teenager to the operating theter, they conducted another test to confirm her fetus had expired, the outlet reported.
The data also underscores the confusion around miscarriage treatment. The rate of sepsis was less severe for pregnant patients who were admitted to the hospital without a fetal heartbeat. The rate moved from 2.1 percent in 2017 to 3.1 percent in 2023 for those admitted with fetal death, and from 3.7 percent to 6.9 percent for those without fetal death.
'What this says to me is that once a fetal death is diagnosed, doctors can appropriately take care of someone to prevent sepsis, but if the fetus still has a heartbeat, then they aren't able to act and the risk for maternal sepsis goes way up,' Dr. Kristina Adams Waldorf, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UW Medicine, told the outlet. 'This is needlessly putting a woman's life in danger.'
Other indicators suggest pregnancy in Texas has become more dangerous. Since 2021, dozens more pregnant and postpartum women have died in Texas hospitals than had before the Covid-19 pandemic — despite a drop in maternal mortality rates at a national level in the same period.
There were 79 maternal hospital deaths in 2018 and 2019 compared to 2022 and 2023 when there were 120. Despite this alarming uptick, the Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee opted not to review pregnancy-related deaths in 2022 and 2023.
'The fact that Texas is not reviewing those years does a disservice to the 120 individuals you identified who died inpatient and were pregnant,' said Dr. Jonas Swartz, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University. 'And that is an underestimation of the number of people who died.'
The laws in place appear to be interfering with patient care, one doctor suggested.
'We have the ability to intervene before these patients get sick,' Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, told the outlet. 'This is evidence that we aren't doing that.'
Even though the Texas Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit asking for clarification over who qualifies for an abortion in the state, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called on the state legislature to clear up the language of the law. 'I do think we need to clarify any language so that doctors are not in fear of being penalized if they think the life of the mother is at risk,' he said last month.
Gov. Greg Abbott, however, doesn't seem to be convinced that any clarification is necessary. 'There have been hundreds of abortions that have been provided under this law, so there are plenty of doctors and plenty of mothers that have been able to get an abortion that saved their lives and protect their health and safety,' he told the Houston Chronicle this week before ProPublica's report was released. 'So I know as the law as it currently exists can work if it is properly applied.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Daily Mail
Trans people have been lied to on legal rights, says equalities chief
Transgender people must accept a 'period of correction' over their rights after the Supreme Court ruling on gender because they have been 'lied to' about their legal status for years, an equalities chief says. Akua Reindorf, who is drafting guidance on how to treat trans people following April's ruling on the definition of a woman, added that the blame lay with their lobbyists. Ms Reindorf, a barrister and one of eight commissioners on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), made her remarks in a personal capacity during a debate hosted by the London School of Economics. She said: 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are.' The EHRC has been given the task of developing new guidelines on transgender people for public buildings such as cafes, schools and hospitals, after the Supreme Court ruled transgender women are not legally women. Shortly after the ruling the EHRC released interim guidance advising: 'Trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities.' Ms Reindorf's words came as the NHS Confederation, which represents hospital trusts, scrapped its old guidance allowing transgender patients to use the toilets of the sex they identify with. A spokesman for the NHS Confederation said their old guidance is now 'dated' and requires updating to align with the Supreme Court ruling. The two developments will be seen as a major blow to transgender activists, who have been petitioning for public organisations such as the NHS to ignore the court's decision. The Girl Guides and Refuge, the largest domestic abuse charity for women, have both said they have no intention in changing their policy on allowing trans women to use their female facilities. Ms Reindorf described their approach as ridiculous, arguing it amounted to a 'huge farce'. She said transgender people 'have been lied to and there has to be a period of correction'. She added: 'The fact is that, until now, trans people without Gender Recognition Certificates, were being grievously misled about their legal rights. 'The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people. 'This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.'
North Wales Chronicle
5 days ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Woman on trial for mushroom murders says she was trying to improve ‘bland' lunch
Before Erin Patterson's in-laws and their relatives arrived at her home for lunch, she bought expensive ingredients, consulted friends about recipes and sent her children out to see a film. Then she served them a dish containing poisonous death cap mushrooms — a meal that was fatal for three of her four guests. Whether that was Patterson's plan is at the heart of a triple murder trial that has gripped Australia for nearly six weeks. Prosecutors in the Supreme Court case in the state of Victoria say the accused lured her guests to lunch with a lie about having cancer, before deliberately feeding them toxic fungi. But her lawyers say the tainted beef Wellington she served was a tragic accident caused by a mushroom storage mishap. She denies murdering her estranged husband's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and their relative, Heather Wilkinson. The mother of two also denies attempting to murder Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, who survived the meal. In a rare step for a defendant charged with murder, Patterson chose to speak in her own defence at her trial this week. On Wednesday, she spoke publicly for the first time about the fateful lunch in July 2023 and offered her explanations on how she planned the meal and did not become ill herself. No one disputes that Patterson, 50, served death cap mushrooms to her guests for lunch in the rural town of Leongatha, but she says she did it unknowingly. Patterson said on Wednesday she splurged on expensive ingredients and researched ideas to find 'something special' to serve. She deviated from her chosen recipe to improve the 'bland' flavour, she said. She believed she was adding dried fungi bought from an Asian supermarket from a container in her pantry, she told the court. 'Now I think that there was a possibility that there were foraged ones in there as well,' she told her lawyer, Colin Mandy. Patterson had foraged wild mushrooms for years, she told the court Tuesday, and had put some in her pantry weeks before the deaths. Patterson, who formally separated from her husband Simon Patterson in 2015, said she felt 'hurt' when Simon told her the night before the lunch that he 'wasn't comfortable' attending. She earlier told his relatives that she had arranged the meal to discuss her health. Patterson admitted this week that she never had cancer — but after a health scare, she told her in-laws she did. In reality, Patterson said she intended to have weight loss surgery. But she was too embarrassed to tell anybody and planned to pretend to her in-laws that she was undergoing cancer treatment instead, she said. 'I was ashamed of the fact that I didn't have control over my body or what I ate,' a tearful Patterson said Wednesday. 'I didn't want to tell anybody, but I shouldn't have lied to them.' The accused said she believes she was spared the worst effects of the poisoned meal because she self-induced vomiting shortly after her lunch guests left. She had binged on most of a cake and then made herself throw up — a problem she said she had struggled with for decades. Patterson also said she believes she had eaten enough of the meal to cause her subsequent diarrhoea. She then sought hospital treatment but unlike her lunch guests, she quickly recovered. At the hospital where her guests' health was deteriorating, her estranged husband asked her about the dehydrator she used to dry her foraged mushrooms, she said. 'Is that how you poisoned my parents?' she said Simon Patterson asked her. Growing afraid she would be blamed for the poisoning and that her children would be taken from her, Patterson said she later disposed of her dehydrator. She told investigators she'd never owned one and had not foraged for mushrooms before. While still at the hospital, she insisted she'd bought all the mushrooms at stores even though she said she knew it was possible that foraged mushrooms had accidentally found their way into the meal. She was too frightened to tell anyone, Patterson said. Also later, Patterson said she remotely wiped her mobile phone while it sat in an evidence locker to remove pictures of mushrooms she had foraged. Prosecutors argued in opening their case in April that she poisoned her husband's family on purpose, although they did not suggest a motive. She carefully avoided poisoning herself and faked being ill, they said. The trial continues with Patterson's cross-examination by the prosecutors. If convicted, she faces life in prison for murder and 25 years for attempted murder.
Glasgow Times
5 days ago
- Glasgow Times
Woman on trial for mushroom murders says she was trying to improve ‘bland' lunch
Before Erin Patterson's in-laws and their relatives arrived at her home for lunch, she bought expensive ingredients, consulted friends about recipes and sent her children out to see a film. Then she served them a dish containing poisonous death cap mushrooms — a meal that was fatal for three of her four guests. Whether that was Patterson's plan is at the heart of a triple murder trial that has gripped Australia for nearly six weeks. Prosecutors in the Supreme Court case in the state of Victoria say the accused lured her guests to lunch with a lie about having cancer, before deliberately feeding them toxic fungi. Ian Wilkinson leaving the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court in Morwell, Australia, on Wednesday (James Ross/AAP Image via AP) But her lawyers say the tainted beef Wellington she served was a tragic accident caused by a mushroom storage mishap. She denies murdering her estranged husband's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and their relative, Heather Wilkinson. The mother of two also denies attempting to murder Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, who survived the meal. In a rare step for a defendant charged with murder, Patterson chose to speak in her own defence at her trial this week. On Wednesday, she spoke publicly for the first time about the fateful lunch in July 2023 and offered her explanations on how she planned the meal and did not become ill herself. No one disputes that Patterson, 50, served death cap mushrooms to her guests for lunch in the rural town of Leongatha, but she says she did it unknowingly. Patterson said on Wednesday she splurged on expensive ingredients and researched ideas to find 'something special' to serve. She deviated from her chosen recipe to improve the 'bland' flavour, she said. She believed she was adding dried fungi bought from an Asian supermarket from a container in her pantry, she told the court. 'Now I think that there was a possibility that there were foraged ones in there as well,' she told her lawyer, Colin Mandy. Patterson had foraged wild mushrooms for years, she told the court Tuesday, and had put some in her pantry weeks before the deaths. Patterson, who formally separated from her husband Simon Patterson in 2015, said she felt 'hurt' when Simon told her the night before the lunch that he 'wasn't comfortable' attending. She earlier told his relatives that she had arranged the meal to discuss her health. Patterson admitted this week that she never had cancer — but after a health scare, she told her in-laws she did. In reality, Patterson said she intended to have weight loss surgery. But she was too embarrassed to tell anybody and planned to pretend to her in-laws that she was undergoing cancer treatment instead, she said. 'I was ashamed of the fact that I didn't have control over my body or what I ate,' a tearful Patterson said Wednesday. 'I didn't want to tell anybody, but I shouldn't have lied to them.' The accused said she believes she was spared the worst effects of the poisoned meal because she self-induced vomiting shortly after her lunch guests left. She had binged on most of a cake and then made herself throw up — a problem she said she had struggled with for decades. Patterson also said she believes she had eaten enough of the meal to cause her subsequent diarrhoea. She then sought hospital treatment but unlike her lunch guests, she quickly recovered. At the hospital where her guests' health was deteriorating, her estranged husband asked her about the dehydrator she used to dry her foraged mushrooms, she said. 'Is that how you poisoned my parents?' she said Simon Patterson asked her. Growing afraid she would be blamed for the poisoning and that her children would be taken from her, Patterson said she later disposed of her dehydrator. She told investigators she'd never owned one and had not foraged for mushrooms before. While still at the hospital, she insisted she'd bought all the mushrooms at stores even though she said she knew it was possible that foraged mushrooms had accidentally found their way into the meal. She was too frightened to tell anyone, Patterson said. Also later, Patterson said she remotely wiped her mobile phone while it sat in an evidence locker to remove pictures of mushrooms she had foraged. Prosecutors argued in opening their case in April that she poisoned her husband's family on purpose, although they did not suggest a motive. She carefully avoided poisoning herself and faked being ill, they said. The trial continues with Patterson's cross-examination by the prosecutors. If convicted, she faces life in prison for murder and 25 years for attempted murder.
