Amber Nicole Thurman’s death from an infection in 2022 is believed to be the first confirmed maternal fatality linked to post-Roe bans.

Reproductive justice advocates have been warning for more than two years that the end of Roe v. Wade would lead to surge in maternal mortality among patients denied abortion care—and that the increase was likely to be greatest among low-income women of color. Now, a new report by ProPublica has uncovered the first such verified death. A 28-year-old medical assistant and Black single mother in Georgia died from a severe infection after a hospital delayed a routine medical procedure that had been outlawed under that state’s six-week abortion ban.

Amber Nicole Thurman’s death, in August 2022, was officially deemed “preventable” by a state committee tasked with reviewing pregnancy-related deaths. Thurman’s case is the first time a preventable abortion-related death has come to public attention since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, ProPublica’s Kavitha Surana reported.

Now, “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of the abortion-rights group Reproductive Freedom for All, during a call with media. “It cannot go on.”

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      94
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It has never been “pro-life” or about saving the lives of “children”. This has always been about controlling women.

      • banshee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most aren’t aware, but this is the crux of the issue. Evangelicals do not value equity and presume others are ignorant/incorrect.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Doubtless you have that. Off the top of my head, you should expect to find:

        1. Those who want to control women.
        2. Those who are uncomfortable with the control aspect but want to get elected.
        3. Pro choice people who want to get elected.
        4. A mix of comfort and discomfort with the ideas of pro choice and controlling women, but still want to get elected.
    • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fascists don’t just lie, they invert the truth precisely.

      Trickle-down economics, for example, was pitched as “a rising tide lifts all boats”, when in reality trickle down economics is the exact opposite of that. A rising tide lifting all boats would be the poorest person getting money until they have as much money as the second poorest person, then those two getting money until they have as much money as the third poorest person, and so on. Lying, reality-inverting fascists got up on a stage–in front of people-- and said that process was the same as giving the people with the most money even more money.

      In a way it’s brilliant, because it’s so brazenly and bafflingly stupid that it acts like an EMP for logical thought. Which they know, and intentionally utilize. The most important skill a fascist has to have is the ability to make people stupid enough to vote for them. What better way than to go for the jugular and assault reality itself?

      With an incessant anti-reality static, courtesy of your fox newses and heritage foundations, reality offers no obstacle at all.

    • Pieisawesome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      Stop using “prolife” as a term.

      It frames their stance positively, call it what it is: “anti-choice”

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        No they are not pro life, and they should never be allowed to use that term or make that claim without protests.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          43
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          They are anti-abortion. That is as far as it goes. They don’t care about giving an expecting mother pre-natal care if she can’t afford it. The certainly don’t give a shit about post-natal care. And if there’s something wrong with her baby an they both die? That’s “god’s will.”

          All they care about is making and keeping abortion illegal. It’s that binary of an issue for them and it’s sick.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            It’s so fucking comical to me too that they call it “god’s will” when children die of the most horrifying, excruciating diseases imagnable long before they’re capable of understanding what’s happening, but when a pregnant woman makes an informed decision not to die during childbirth over a shrimp living inside her taco, that’s a bridge too far, and the all-mighty creator and ruler of the universe is very disappointed in you for killing one of his children when he was powerless to stop it.

            Sweetie, maybe your fairytale sugar daddy’s will isn’t all that benevolent. 💀

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You would think that an omnipotent being could just prevent any abortion from happening if he didn’t want them to happen.

              • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 months ago

                No, no, you see it’s free will. Which makes total sense, because god can’t possibly foresee what we’re going to do, which is a problem omniscient beings definitely struggle with. Or if he can foresee what we’re going to do and he is omniscient, then he’s not omnibenevolent because he had exact foreknowledge of what was going to happen and let it anyway. After all, why “test” if you already know the precise outcome if not to watch people suffer for fun? If you need people to learn lessons, why can’t you just magically teach them those lessons? And if you’re not capable of this, how are you omnipotent?

                Pick at most two of the three; you can’t have all of them.

                • catloaf@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I don’t think everyone ever claimed the Abrahamic god to be benevolent.

                  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Christians are routinely taught that god is not just loving (“benevolent”) but all-loving (“omnibenevolent”). Here’s the Pope talking about how “tender” and “astonishing” and “gratuitous” god’s love is. 4:8 of the First Epistle of John in the Bible – part of the de jure and de facto source of truth about god for Christianity – reads: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”

                    Sure we could reduce that down to “omnibenevolent as long as you love him back”, as e.g. Proverbs 8:17 says “I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.” But even then, god heavily abuses those who love him. The Bible tries to justify this bizarre cosmic domestic abuse in the book of Job, but it’s one of the most ridiculous, fucked up stories imaginable where god literally bets with Satan that he can fuck up one of his most devoted follower’s life as much as he wants and he still won’t turn away from him.

      • puppy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Seeing that they oppose school lunches, gun control and free healthcare, not your children’s lives either.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        If they were pro-life and consistent that lives are more important than human rights, they would also be clamoring for gun control on the basis of saving children’s lives in schools. Or, fuck, universal healthcare is an easy one, higher taxes for the wealthy aren’t even harming anyone’s rights and it saves lives.

        But it is actually about controlling women with medical slavery and claims about saving lives are all lies they don’t actually believe.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I propose to stop using “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. Instead use “pro-quantity” and “pro-quality”.